Re: Improve LWLock tranche name visibility across backends

On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:01:53PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote:
> I kept the local array to serve consecutive reads and to avoid having to
> take a shared lock on shared memory every time GetLWTrancheName is
> called. A new LWLock to protect this array is required.

I'm not seeing why we need this cache anymore.  This is an append-only
list, so we could instead keep a backend-local copy of LWLockCounter that
gets updated as needed.  As long as the ID is less than our backend-local
counter, we can go straight to the shared array.  If it is greater, we'll
have to first update our counter, which should be rare and inexpensive.

-- 
nathan