Re: Clean up NamedLWLockTranche stuff

From: Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Clean up NamedLWLockTranche stuff
Date: 2026-03-27 04:49:11
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0sLENRM+BicUjQFs_rP38oPx3gm0SsGrD0-jMhhM+HZ_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> +/* backend-local copy of NamedLWLockTranches->num_user_defined */
> +static int LocalNumUserDefinedTranches;

> The comment here should reference "LWLockTranches->num_user_defined "
> instead.

> Also, there are a few places in lwlock.c where "named tranches" is mentioned.
> Maybe we should just say "user-defined tranches" instead?

Like the attached.

--
Sami

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-fix-some-comments-for-lwlock-tranches.patch application/octet-stream 2.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nisha Moond 2026-03-27 04:57:43 Re: Use SIGTERM instead of SIGUSR1 for slotsync worker to exit during promotion?
Previous Message Yugo Nagata 2026-03-27 04:46:37 Re: Adjust error message for CREATE STATISTICS to account for expressions