Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 16:42:09 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
	Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
Message-ID: <aKOeMUjcv9Gozyyg@nathan>
References: 
 <CAA5RZ0tQ+EYSTOd2hQ8RXdsNfGBLAtOe-YmnsTE6ZVg0E-4qew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0siw2MrVjf9iPYRpe8sgZW+TJRqmxKfCr=QS9mX+ZF8Lw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aJuaoouYv8l8f0PS@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0vs6T5OVg3Gs768DxO9QYdAc3FpwaMa6rmqn37WOxH91Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <aJyUGUyx8dQxstPz@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAA5RZ0tm6UFuY43-=fB-JtDEten3gA6tMCH1zLv+R9FT=MDApg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0ukmNd+C1jH4V6BGEea-wmyLxDtDE5QoEtfXd2W5HNHfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aKL1w6tczBqsqLiJ@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAA5RZ0uuWWL5z80KEs95Evy9CrQqnR6vY91BmFor5YmEf06j=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA5RZ0vPcUb68h16ueg=A1R4ps=qU74jvG8N2xaX97DAK-E7_A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA5RZ0vPcUb68h16ueg=A1R4ps=qU74jvG8N2xaX97DAK-E7_A@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aKOeMUjcv9Gozyyg%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 18, 2025 at 01:06:42PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> Attached is v10,

I've been staring at the latest patch for a bit, and I'm a bit concerned
at how much complexity it adds.  I think it's a good idea to keep a local
array of tranche names indexed by tranche ID, but the code for managing the
list of DSA pointers scares me.  I know we were trying to avoid using
dshash earlier, if for no other reason than it's perhaps not the best data
structure for the job, but ISTM we'd eliminate a lot of complexity if we
offloaded the shmem pieces to a dshash table (or some other shmem-based
data structure we have yet to introduce, like a dslist/dsarray).  WDYT?

-- 
nathan