Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

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 15:33:01
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0t3ZwvMNWGNFx6yobUNZNca4Rz2kLhAP8bb8chXYyXJog@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.

--
Sami

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dean Rasheed 2025-08-04 15:47:37 Re: Typo in create_index regression test
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2025-08-04 15:24:48 Re: [PATCH] OAuth: fix performance bug with stuck multiplexer events