Horton

Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-08-25T21:59:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:37:21PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > When we lookup from shared array only, we need to take a shared lock
> > every lookup. Acquiring that lock is what I am trying to avoid. You
> > are saying it's not worth optimizing that part, correct?
>
> Why do we need a shared lock here?  IIUC there's no chance that existing
> entries will change.  We'll only ever add new ones to the end.

hmm, can we really avoid a shared lock when reading from shared memory?
considering access for both reads and writes can be concurrent to shared
memory. We are also taking an exclusive lock when writing a new tranche.

--
Sami

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().