Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1upZOc-007uvc-VG for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 21:34:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1upZOb-008LeO-D8 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 21:34:02 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1upZOb-008LeB-3C for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 21:34:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1upZOZ-001FoH-0a for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 21:34:00 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 57MLXt3w2151673; Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:33:55 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Sami Imseih cc: Nathan Bossart , Andres Freund , Bertrand Drouvot , Rahila Syed , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends In-reply-to: References: <34drxi6kshtzu5aerftjflrm6wfxxw54emyvy4gqemdpxxuhvm@gymw6its72o7> <5to6tftuml6nkas4jaaljfzecasvslxq3mumeslh74wsol4mzw@rgxpxxlqqwtf> <876523.1755635201@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Sami Imseih message dated "Fri, 22 Aug 2025 15:49:38 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2151671.1755898435.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 17:33:55 -0400 Message-ID: <2151672.1755898435@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Sami Imseih writes: > One point I did not make earlier is that the tranche name lengths will > need to be as long as we allow in dsm_registry.c. > #define DSMR_NAME_LEN 128 Huh. Why is that different from NAMEDATALEN in the first place? regards, tom lane