Well, my only suspicion is about the fact that I store "this" pointers in my shared_ptr's. However, those objects are dynamically allocated by myself, namely, they are not of automatic storage type anyway. In other words, my row pointer and "this" -- which themselves are different objects -- both point to the same memory dynamically allocated by myself. Furthermore, my following observation goes against this guess: (This is available above too.)
Why do you need to use two semantically different pointers to point to the same piece of dynamic memory?
Actually it does allocate memory for other objects (which are stored in the same container). But, I have tested that and the result is that everything -- including this extra allocation -- works perfectly fine JUST if I drop the insertion of this very specific object in the same container. Am I missing anything? I would especially be keen on knowing whether you see any problems in storing "this" pointers of my own dynamically allocated objects in shared_ptr's.
You may need to show how "specific" the object is -- sometimes a few lines of code are better than paragraphs of words. Why do you need to put a "this" pointer in a shared_ptr? When you can get a hand on "this", you are in the member function of the class. Basically that means your instance has already been created. The client creating the instance should probably manage the life cycle of this instance. I would say it's normally the responsibility of the client to put the instance pointer into a shared_ptr if it's not allocated on the stack. Again, you may want to paste your code to make the discussion easier.