Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

Hi,

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...

Greetings,

Andres Freund