From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-Id: <200105031915.f43JFpf12056@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Re: libpq++
In-Reply-To: <29887.988917180@sss.pgh.pa.us> "from Tom Lane at May 3,
	2001 03:13:00 pm"
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 15:15:51 -0400 (EDT)
CC: justinb@mr-boo.com, justinb@tricord.com,
	PostgreSQL-interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> Justin Banks <justinb@mr-boo.com> writes:
> > As one would have expected, I've found a problem. The c++ std. says that
> > Automatic objects are not destroyed as a result of calling exit(), and so, a
> > automatic PgDatabase in main() (or most anywhere, actually), would not have
> > it's destructor called during an exit(), thereby leaving junk shm. segments
> > around.
> 
> Unless your kernel is broken, application exit will cause the backend
> connection to be closed, whereupon the backend will exit gracefully.
> I see nothing to worry about here.
> 
> I'm not sure where you got this notion that clients get to touch any
> of Postgres' shared memory ;-) but they don't.

I think he is creating his own shared memory area:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I'd like to have happen is for a total of one connection to the
database to be made, and have all these objects share that connection
transparently. I made this happen by using a shared memory segment to
store the connection pointer. Here's the diff. It doesn't seem to break
anything, but then again, my coverage is rather limited at this point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026