| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Date: | 2025-07-14 19:55:32 |
| Message-ID: | 717489.1752522932@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Ah, I missed the problem with postmaster. Could we have the first backend
> that needs to access the table be responsible for creating it and
> populating it with the built-in/requested-at-startup entries? Also, is
> there any chance that postmaster might need to access the tranche names?
Seems quite hazardous to let the postmaster get involved with such
a data structure. If it seems to need to, we'd better rethink
where to put the functionality that needs the access.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-14 20:30:39 | fix organization wording in psql's \copyright command |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-07-14 19:46:50 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |