Craig Ringer <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 01/06/10 11:05, Tom Lane wrote: >> 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. Yeah, if you can design your code so that C++ never has to call back into the core backend, that eliminates a large chunk of the pain. Should we be documenting design ideas like this one? regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
