> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 05:53:23PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > Just a few things that were discussed earlier, that I incorporated now. > > > > 1/ We should be checking that tranche_name is NOT NULL when > > LWLockNewTrancheId or RequestNamedLWLockTranche is called. > > Right, if not strlen() does segfault. > > In addition to checking for NULL, should we also check for empty string? > Currently, > the patch does accept strlen(tranche_name) == 0.
I am not inclined to prevent an empty string. It's currently allowed and rather
not change that.
> ```
> typedef struct NamedLWLockTranche
> {
> char trancheName[NAMEDATALEN];
> int num_lwlocks;
> } NamedLWLockTranche;
> ```
> if there is no interest to backpatch [0], maybe we should just make this
> change as part of this patch set. What do you think? I can make this change
> in v18.
Here is v18. It includes a third patch to fix the issue identified in
[0], which can
be applied to HEAD as part of this thread. If we want to backpatch the stable
branches, the version in [0] is suitable.
Note that I created a LWLockNewTrancheIdInternal which takes a tranch
name and number of lwlocks. The Internal version is used during startup when
requested lwlocks are appended to shared memory, and the existing
LWLockNewTrancheId calls the internal version with 0 lwlocks.
This keeps all the logic to appending a new tranche ( while holding
the spinlock )
in the same routine.
--
Sami
v18-0002-Move-dynamically-allocated-tranche-names-to-shar.patch
Description: Binary data
v18-0003-Fix-EXEC_BACKEND-segfault-on-NamedLWLockTrancheR.patch
Description: Binary data
v18-0001-dsm_registry-Use-one-LWLock-tranche-for-dshash-t.patch
Description: Binary data
