| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jacob Rief <jacob(dot)rief(at)gmx(dot)at>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Writing triggers in C++ |
| Date: | 2007-02-14 16:38:22 |
| Message-ID: | 1171471102.5454.297.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 13:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Probably stack allocation doesn't matter much, as I think that would be
> unwinded by the longjmp call. I don't know a lot about C++, but if
> there are allocations in the data area then those would probably not be
> freed. But it makes me wonder -- is longjmp very compatible with C++
> exceptions at all?
"C-style stack unwinding (using setjmp and longjmp from <csetjmp>) is
incompatible with exception-handling and is best avoided." (Stroustrup,
p. 433).
Which presumably means that in practice, the interaction between these
features is implementation-defined.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-14 16:45:56 | Re: "anyelement2" pseudotype |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-02-14 16:27:31 | Re: integer datetimes |