| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Date: | 2025-08-19 18:37:19 |
| Message-ID: | 5to6tftuml6nkas4jaaljfzecasvslxq3mumeslh74wsol4mzw@rgxpxxlqqwtf |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2025-08-19 13:31:35 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:06:50PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Possibly stupid question - is it really worth having a dynamic structure here?
> > The number of tranches is strictly bound, it seems like it'd be simpler to
> > have an array of tranch nmes in shared memory.
>
> Tranches can be allocated post-startup with LWLockNewTrancheId() (e.g.,
> autoprewarm).
Sure, but we don't need to support a large number of tranches. Just make it,
idk, 128 entries long. Adding a dynamically allocated dsm to every server
seems like a waste - ever shared mapping makes fork / exit slower...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-19 18:44:39 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Previous Message | Andrey Borodin | 2025-08-19 18:34:21 | Re: VM corruption on standby |