Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org,"Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>,"Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in>,"Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Date: 2003-09-26 14:43:22
Message-ID: 15538.1064587402@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-hackers-win32
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-26 14:49:16
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-09-26 14:32:50
Subject: Re: invalid tid errors in latest 7.3.4 stable.

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-09-26 14:49:16
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous:From: Shridhar DaithankarDate: 2003-09-26 12:34:11
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group