Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(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 18:31:35
Message-ID: aKTDB5mvSowmC0Lf@nathan
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:06:50PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Possibly stupid question - is it really worth having a dynamic structure here?
> The number of tranches is strictly bound, it seems like it'd be simpler to
> have an array of tranch nmes in shared memory.

Tranches can be allocated post-startup with LWLockNewTrancheId() (e.g.,
autoprewarm).

--
nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey Borodin 2025-08-19 18:34:21 Re: VM corruption on standby
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-08-19 18:28:03 Re: RFC: extensible planner state