Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:14:40 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@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>
Subject: Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
Message-ID: <aKz8cHo2oBr-6uq5@nathan>
References: <876523.1755635201@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAA5RZ0sbo-HAOrTGVoqP3giXKDV_LXL0UGaYs8mfjcS33mn3FQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aKTlu7mHhx4owx6r@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0tg0-O3KVrP9UrZWm18OECxK87WNJo=cZy=Gevc+Ui5oA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aKTqiofwo1Eif_3w@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0tKoQeTuRsFmUjPAOEXBiyEGyePsqCAy-_oX4eFHSCmHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aKzP-H-KzPay-ByM@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0vh7jrGDwJgkKtw-LR5fBH-tRNpGJnPivdKedtqJ7HGCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aKzZV8Acib6pFesE@nathan>
 <CAA5RZ0vWh2uxG99iUb3P4nsoDLk0x7Yuai83AbbGs3YZvJM8QQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA5RZ0vWh2uxG99iUb3P4nsoDLk0x7Yuai83AbbGs3YZvJM8QQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aKz8cHo2oBr-6uq5%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> 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.

We probably want to hold a lock while we 1) increment LWLockCounter and
copy a new tranche name to memory and 2) while we copy the current value of
LWLockCounter to our backend-local variable.  Otherwise, AFAICT we don't
need one.  We could probably use ShmemLock for this.

-- 
nathan