Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 15538.1064587402@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes ("Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Threads vs Processes
|
| Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: