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 14:53:36
Message-ID: CAA5RZ0vPWNMvTBqyH7nqDRrHd6Y4Et5iNqXFuwpbsPOk3cL4rQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Committed with that little change, thanks!

Thanks!

I think there is one more comment cleanup in lwlock.c

/*
- * This points to the main array of LWLocks in shared memory. Backends inherit
- * the pointer by fork from the postmaster (except in the EXEC_BACKEND case,
- * where we have special measures to pass it down).
+ * This points to the main array of LWLocks in shared memory.
*/

we no longer need to take special measures to pass down MainLWLockArray
through the BackendParameters.

--
Sami

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-Remove-another-outdated-comment-regading-MainLWLo.patch application/octet-stream 990 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-03-27 14:55:23 Re: Add "format" target to make and ninja to run pgindent and pgperltidy
Previous Message Matthias van de Meent 2026-03-27 14:51:35 Re: SQL-level pg_datum_image_equal