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)
