On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:13:02PM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 01/06/10 11:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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.
These two paragraphs, suitably changed to be more like the rest of the
docs, would be a great start for people interested in using C++.
Would some short bits of sample code help?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate