| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(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 21:16:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0tg0-O3KVrP9UrZWm18OECxK87WNJo=cZy=Gevc+Ui5oA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 03:52:33PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > If we limit the tranche name to NAMEDATALEN and also limit the
> > number of tranches an extension can register, we can put this
> > all in static shared memory (We would still need to have a backend local
> > cache to allow lookups to avoid going to shared memory).
>
> I bet we could avoid the local cache by keeping a backend-local copy of
> LWLockCounter that gets updated as needed.
maybe. If we agree to impose limits ( both name length and # of tranches ),
that will allow us to do things a bit different.
If there is agreement on setting limits, may I propose
1024 tranches and NAMEDATALEN. Both seem reasonably sufficient.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-19 21:20:10 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-19 21:05:00 | Re: Remove Instruction Synchronization Barrier in spin_delay() for ARM64 architecture |