MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <47aaf57e-1b7b-4e12-bda2-0316081ff50e@iki.fi>
 <acVEqGemyK-Yjswa@nathan>
 <adab98a3-a0e3-4455-9b63-ae6f1ecd18c9@iki.fi>
 <CAA5RZ0ueB84OUews-mS0+ojeWaDtcoV1qY4CNZD8PrdGcaXW-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d78edccb-27c0-4c9c-baee-1ce7745c8cc4@iki.fi>
 <0ba6cb8c-a893-4445-b8fa-fa9f52be8f39@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <0ba6cb8c-a893-4445-b8fa-fa9f52be8f39@iki.fi>
From: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2026 22:57:44 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAA5RZ0s+-_d6RBSfmLvekGLTCi2EZ7hiHp3RhMVDEexGXq=7Vg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clean up NamedLWLockTranche stuff
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA5RZ0s%2B-_d6RBSfmLvekGLTCi2EZ7hiHp3RhMVDEexGXq%3D7Vg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

> > Thanks!
> >
> > On 26/03/2026 18:34, Sami Imseih wrote:
> >>> I propose the attached refactorings to make this less confusing. See
> >>> commit messages for details.
> >>
> >> I only took a look at 0001 so far, and I do agree with this statement
> >> in the commit message:
>
> I committed these now, but I'm all ears if you still have comments on
> the rest of the patches.

Sorry for the delay. I see you committed the rest. The only issue I found
is with d6eba30

+/* backend-local copy of NamedLWLockTranches->num_user_defined */
+static int  LocalNumUserDefinedTranches;

The comment here should reference "LWLockTranches->num_user_defined "
instead.

>> rename RequestNamedLWLockTranche() to RequestUserDefinedLWLockTranche()
>> and LWLockNewTrancheId() to RegisterUserDefinedLWLockTranche()

> I'd rather not change RequestNamedLWLockTranche(), because I think
> LWLockNewTrancheId() is better and should be used in new code.

That's fair.

>> v19 is already changing the signature of LWLockNewTrancheId(), so maybe
>> improving the names of these APIs makes sense to do.

> Oh, I didn't realize we changed the LWLockNewTrancheId() signature!
> Yeah, if we're changing it anyway, we might as well rename it. I'm not
> sure if I like RegisterUserDefinedLWLockTranche() better, but let's
> think it through.

Maybe, RegisterNewLWLockTrancheId() could be more meaningful?

Also, there are a few places in lwlock.c where "named tranches" is mentioned.
Maybe we should just say "user-defined tranches" instead?

--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)