Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, why bother with init_dump_utils at all?
> Well, the Windows reference I have suggests TlsAlloc() needs to be
> called early in the initialisation process ...
How early is early? The proposed call sites for init_dump_utils seem
already long past the point where any libc-level infrastructure would
think it is "initialization" time.
>> I'd lose the added retval
>> variable too; that's not contributing anything.
> It is, in fact. Until I put that in I was getting constant crashes. I
> suspect it's something to do with stuff Windows does under the hood on
> function return.
Pardon me while I retrieve my eyebrows from the ceiling. I think you've
got something going on there you don't understand, and you need to
understand it not just put in a cargo-cult fix. (Especially one that's
not documented and hence likely to be removed by the next person who
touches the code.)
regards, tom lane
