On 01/06/10 11:05, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Personally I would reduce this section to >>> Don't. > >> Well, I would have avoided this mine-trap except we have this 9.0 >> release note item: >> Allow use of <productname>C++</> functions in backend code (Kurt >> Harriman, Peter Eisentraut) > > I'd be interested to see a section like this written by someone who'd > actually done a nontrivial C++ extension and lived to tell the tale. I can't speak up there - my own C++/Pg backend stuff has been fairly trivial, and has been where I can maintain a fairly clean separation of the C++-exposed and the Pg-backend-exposed parts. I was able to keep things separate enough that my C++ compilation units didn't include the Pg backend headers; they just exposed a pure C public interface. The Pg backend-using compilation units were written in C, and talked to the C++ part over its exposed pure C interfaces. This was very much pain-free, but I certainly wouldn't want to try to use C++ code tightly intermixed with Pg backend-using code. It'd be a nightmare. -- Craig Ringer Tech-related writing: http://soapyfrogs.blogspot.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
