Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> > hmm, can we really avoid a shared lock when reading from shared memory?
> > considering access for both reads and writes can be concurrent to shared
> > memory. We are also taking an exclusive lock when writing a new tranche.
>
> We probably want to hold a lock while we 1) increment LWLockCounter and
> copy a new tranche name to memory and

In the last rev, I removed the spinlock acquired on ShmemLock in-lieu of
a LWLock. This is because I wanted a single LWLock acquisition while
both incrementing LWLockCounter and writing to shared memory, and
doing this much work, particularly writing to shared memory,
with a spinlock seemed inappropriate. With that said, this is not high
concurrency of performance sensitive activity at all, so perhaps I was
being overly paranoid.

--
Sami