| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
| Date: | 2025-08-06 16:56:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0uh_WviMnh9z-oZP32SSE5MBEshzx5Cfe0rFYnPwQNzJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for testing!
> Why is it necessary to allocate a new dsa_pointer for tranche names that are the same size and then
> free the old one?
> Is there a reason we can't just assign new_ptrs[i] = old_ptrs[i]?
Fair point. I will updated in the next rev. We don't need to free the'
existing tranche name pointers, only the list.
> Would it be possible to update LWLockInitialize so that it checks if tranche_id is
> already registered in the dsa, and if not, registers it during the LWLockInitialize() process?
We could. I do think this will need a separate discussion as a follow-up to this
thread.
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-06 17:09:28 | Re: fix ancient typo in transformRelOptions() |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-08-06 16:54:33 | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |