Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes
Date
Msg-id 15538.1064587402@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes  ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes  (Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Surely the addresses can be assumed constant within a thread.
>> Otherwise we have a problem here too.

> Quoting from the MSDN:
> The address of a thread local object is not considered constant, and any
> expression involving such an address is not considered a constant
> expression.

Ah.  That's probably reasonable.  Still a bit of a PITA for us, as there
are various places that do give a static variable an initializer
pointing to another static.  But that could be worked around I think.
I thought you were saying that the compiler would forbid taking a TLS
variable's address even at runtime.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: feature request: show pgsql version when running initdb
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Threads vs Processes