On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 03:45:02PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: >> Ah, I missed the problem with postmaster. Could we have the first backend >> that needs to access the table be responsible for creating it and >> populating it with the built-in/requested-at-startup entries? > > We can certainly maintain a flag in the shared state that is set once > the first backend loads all the tranches in shared memory. That did not > cross my mind, but it feels wrong to offload such responsibility to a > normal backend.
Well, we already need each backend to either initialize or attach to the dshash table, and the initialization would only ever happen once on a running server. Adding a new initialization step to bootstrap the built-in and registered-at-startup tranche names doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. Another random thought: I worry that the dshash approach might be quite a bit slower, and IIUC we just need to map an integer to a string. Maybe we should just use a DSA for LWLockTrancheNames. IOW we'd leave it as a char ** but put it in shared memory. -- nathan
