> So, if we were adding named LWLocks today, I suspect we might do it > differently. The first thing that comes to mind is that we could store a > shared LWLockTrancheNames table.
+1 > and stop requiring each backend to register them individually. which will prevent odd behavior when a backend does not register a tranche. > In short, LWLockNewTrancheId() would gain a new name argument, and > LWLockRegisterTranche() would disappear. That looks sane to me. The only reason LWLockNewTrancheId and LWLockRegisterTranche are currently separate is because each backend has to register, so having separate routines is necessary. > We would probably need to be > smart to avoid contention on the name table, but that feels avoidable to Most of the time, we would be reading and not updating the table, so contention may not be a big problem. -- Sami
