On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:37:19PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-08-19 13:31:35 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:06:50PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Possibly stupid question - is it really worth having a dynamic structure here?
>> > The number of tranches is strictly bound, it seems like it'd be simpler to
>> > have an array of tranch nmes in shared memory.
>>
>> Tranches can be allocated post-startup with LWLockNewTrancheId() (e.g.,
>> autoprewarm).
>
> Sure, but we don't need to support a large number of tranches. Just make it,
> idk, 128 entries long. Adding a dynamically allocated dsm to every server
> seems like a waste - ever shared mapping makes fork / exit slower...
The other issue is that there's presently no limit on the length of a
tranche name registered via LWLockRegisterTranche(). Life would become
much simpler if we're willing to put a limit on both that and the number of
tranches, but thus far we've been trying to avoid it.
--
nathan
