Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
От | Sami Imseih |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA5RZ0sUy38M2q0ML0v27hA=gZzZGdjbqv-vGyh_nd8o43Q4pA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:01 PM Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> If there is agreement on setting limits, may I propose > >> 1024 tranches and NAMEDATALEN. Both seem reasonably sufficient. > > > Let's proceed with that approach for now. We can worry about the exact > > limits once this is closer to commit. > > v11 implements the fixed size shared memory as discussed. One point I did not make earlier is that the tranche name lengths will need to be as long as we allow in dsm_registry.c. ``` #define DSMR_NAME_LEN 128 #define DSMR_DSA_TRANCHE_SUFFIX " DSA" #define DSMR_DSA_TRANCHE_SUFFIX_LEN (sizeof(DSMR_DSA_TRANCHE_SUFFIX) - 1) #define DSMR_DSA_TRANCHE_NAME_LEN (DSMR_NAME_LEN + DSMR_DSA_TRANCHE_SUFFIX_LEN) ``` We should make the limits external (in lwlock.h) and dsa_registery.c can enforce based on those values. -- Sami
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: