Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 16:04:56 -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: <aKzP-H-KzPay-ByM@nathan>
References: <34drxi6kshtzu5aerftjflrm6wfxxw54emyvy4gqemdpxxuhvm@gymw6its72o7>
 <aKTDB5mvSowmC0Lf@nathan>
 <5to6tftuml6nkas4jaaljfzecasvslxq3mumeslh74wsol4mzw@rgxpxxlqqwtf>
 <aKTGF9Fv1ioXa9P5@nathan>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA5RZ0tKoQeTuRsFmUjPAOEXBiyEGyePsqCAy-_oX4eFHSCmHw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aKzP-H-KzPay-ByM%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:01:53PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I kept the local array to serve consecutive reads and to avoid having to
> take a shared lock on shared memory every time GetLWTrancheName is
> called. A new LWLock to protect this array is required.

I'm not seeing why we need this cache anymore.  This is an append-only
list, so we could instead keep a backend-local copy of LWLockCounter that
gets updated as needed.  As long as the ID is less than our backend-local
counter, we can go straight to the shared array.  If it is greater, we'll
have to first update our counter, which should be rare and inexpensive.

-- 
nathan