Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> 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