From: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
Date: | 2025-07-15 07:29:04 |
Message-ID: | CAH2L28v0Qf=CrLYVTQP9g6cncHo2bU4P=1NhjSom7rnOjwxKQg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
>
> Since DSM is not available during postmaster, if we were to create a DSA
> segment in place, similar to what's done in StatsShmemInit(), we would also
> need to ensure that the initial shared memory is sized appropriately. This
> is
> because it would need to be large enough to accommodate all user-defined
> tranches registered during postmaster, without having to rely on new
> dsm segments.
> From my experimentation, this sizing is not as straightforward as simply
> calculating # of tranches * size of a tranche entry.
>
> I still think we should create the dsa during postmaster, as we do with
> StatsShmemInit, but it would be better if postmaster keeps its hands off
> this
> dshash and only normal backends can use them.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
Since creating a DSA segment in place during Postmaster startup still
requires calculating the size of
the tranche names table including the user-defined tranches, why not use
static shared memory to
pre-allocate a fixed sized table and arrays of size NAMEDATALEN to store
the names?
If a dshash table is used to store tranche names and IDs, where would the
tranche name for this table
be registered?
Thank you,
Rahila Syed
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2025-07-15 07:33:10 | RE: stats.sql might fail due to shared buffers also used by parallel tests |
Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2025-07-15 07:20:58 | Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY |