> > I think we could add a local backend copy that stays up to date with the > > DSA. One idea would be to use an atomic counter to track the number of > > entries in the DSA and compare it with a local backend counter whenever the > > tranche name lookup occurs. If the atomic counter is higher (since we > > don't have deletions), > > we can update the local copy. Updating the local table should be a > > rare occurrence, but it would > > require an additional atomic fetch every time the name lookup occurs, in > > all the > > above code paths. > > > > Perhaps there's a better approach? > > I was thinking to switch to the DSA (and update local copy) when a name is > not found in the local copy. That way there is no need to maintain a counter > and > the DSA overhead should be rare enough. > > Regards,
That should work as well. good idea. -- Sami
