On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 08:35:13PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 04:12:09PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: >>> Yeah, I think modeling this after commit 4f2400c is a reasonable thing to >>> explore. >> >> Here it is as described above. > > Thanks. This looks like the right idea to me, but let's give some time for > others to comment.
I've started preparing this for commit, and I realized that restricting GetNamedLWLockTranche() to shmem_startup_hook is not sufficient. EXEC_BACKEND builds will run this hook in every backend, so unless it's guarded behind some sort of "if (!found)" condition (i.e., only run in the postmaster), it'll still crash. I think we just need to add some extra notes to the docs and check for !IsUnderPostmaster, as discussed upthread. -- nathan
