Horton

Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-08-19T18:37:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 2025-08-19 13:31:35 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> 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).

Sure, but we don't need to support a large number of tranches. Just make it,
idk, 128 entries long. Adding a dynamically allocated dsm to every server
seems like a waste - ever shared mapping makes fork / exit slower...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Commits

  1. test_dsa: Avoid leaking LWLock tranches.

  2. Teach DSM registry to ERROR if attaching to an uninitialized entry.

  3. Add a test harness for the LWLock tranche code.

  4. Revert recent change to RequestNamedLWLockTranche().

  5. Move dynamically-allocated LWLock tranche names to shared memory.

  6. Prepare DSM registry for upcoming changes to LWLock tranche names.

  7. Add GetNamedDSA() and GetNamedDSHash().