Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Kurt at DBC" <kurtw(at)dbc(dot)co(dot)nz>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, <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 08:53:14
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4962017@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32


> "When the address-of operator is applied to a thread-local variable, it
> is evaluated at run-time and returns the address of the current thread's
> instance of that variable. An address so obtained may be used by any
> thread. When a thread terminates, any pointers to thread-local variables
> in that thread become invalid."

Bummer, I would have thought one advantage of using TLS must surely be memory
protection ? So the only for pg useful usage for TLS seems to be "__declspec(thread)"
and "__declspec(thread) static" (both for stuff that do not need runtime
preinitialization).

Maybe the techniques of electric fence could be used for protecting the shmem
at least a little bit.

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2003-09-26 09:35:08 Re: pg_get_triggerdef pretty printing
Previous Message Christopher Kings-Lynne 2003-09-26 07:48:54 pg_get_triggerdef pretty printing

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2003-09-26 12:11:44 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes
Previous Message Kurt at DBC 2003-09-26 03:52:11 Re: [HACKERS] Threads vs Processes