| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2025-08-18 21:42:09 |
| Message-ID: | aKOeMUjcv9Gozyyg@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 01:06:42PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Attached is v10,
I've been staring at the latest patch for a bit, and I'm a bit concerned
at how much complexity it adds. I think it's a good idea to keep a local
array of tranche names indexed by tranche ID, but the code for managing the
list of DSA pointers scares me. I know we were trying to avoid using
dshash earlier, if for no other reason than it's perhaps not the best data
structure for the job, but ISTM we'd eliminate a lot of complexity if we
offloaded the shmem pieces to a dshash table (or some other shmem-based
data structure we have yet to introduce, like a dslist/dsarray). WDYT?
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-08-18 22:05:00 | Re: shmem_startup_hook called twice on Windows |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-18 21:37:26 | Re: Improve hash join's handling of tuples with null join keys |