| 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>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2025-08-29 16:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | aLHO-jh-spXWG1pt@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 05:53:23PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
>> I think this patch set will require reworking the "GetNamedLWLockTranche
>> crashes on Windows in normal backend" patch [0], but AFAICT we can easily
>> adjust it to scan through NamedLWLockTrancheNames instead.
>
> Except, we will need to turn the char**NamedLWLockTranche into a struct
> that will hold the num_lwlocks as well. Something like. But that is doable.
Ah, right.
> If there is no interest to backpatch [0], maybe we should just make this
> change as part of this patch set. What do you think? I can make this change
> in v18.
I think we should keep that separate. I don't see any benefit to combining
it, and it'd be good to keep the discussion in a single thread in the
archives for future reference.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-08-29 16:14:17 | Re: Assert single row returning SQL-standard functions |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-29 15:57:10 | Re: Unused parameter in ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts() |