On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:12:23 -0500 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev > <i.kurbangal...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > We keep limited number of LWLocks in base shared memory, why not > > keep their thanches in shared memory too? Other tranches can be in > > local memory, we just have to save somewhere highest id of these > > tranches. > > I just don't see it buying us anything. The tranches are small and > contain only a handful of values. The values need to be present in > shared memory but the tranches themselves don't. > > Now, if it's convenient to put them in shared memory and doesn't cause > us any other problems, then maybe there's no real downside. But it's > not clear to me that there's any upside either. > I see. Since tranche names are always in shared memory or static strings, then maybe we should just create global static char * array with fixed length for names (something like `char *LWLockTrancheNames[NUM_LWLOCK_BUILTIN_TRANCHES]`)? It will be just enough for monitoring purposes, and doesn't matter where a tranche is located. We will have a name pointer for built-in tranches only, and fixed length of this array will not be a problem since we know exact count of them. -- Ildus Kurbangaliev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
