| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Date: | 2025-08-04 16:32:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0s0E52W_k53njwHCQN6tXE_FkOH705brXRo7D2hYcQ46Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > I think we could add a local backend copy that stays up to date with the
> > > DSA. One idea would be to use an atomic counter to track the number of
> > > entries in the DSA and compare it with a local backend counter whenever the
> > > tranche name lookup occurs. If the atomic counter is higher (since we
> > > don't have deletions),
> > > we can update the local copy. Updating the local table should be a
> > > rare occurrence, but it would
> > > require an additional atomic fetch every time the name lookup occurs, in all the
> > > above code paths.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there's a better approach?
> >
> > I was thinking to switch to the DSA (and update local copy) when a name is
> > not found in the local copy. That way there is no need to maintain a counter and
> > the DSA overhead should be rare enough.
> >
> > Regards,
>
> That should work as well. good idea.
With a local hash table, I don't think it's necessary to introduce new
code for managing
a DSA based list of tranche names as is done in v3. We can go back to
storing the shared
trance names in dshash.
What do you think?
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Marshall | 2025-08-04 16:55:07 | Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2025-08-04 15:47:37 | Re: Typo in create_index regression test |