> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:01:53PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > I kept the local array to serve consecutive reads and to avoid having to > > take a shared lock on shared memory every time GetLWTrancheName is > > called. A new LWLock to protect this array is required. > > I'm not seeing why we need this cache anymore. This is an append-only > list, so we could instead keep a backend-local copy of LWLockCounter that > gets updated as needed. As long as the ID is less than our backend-local > counter, we can go straight to the shared array. If it is greater, we'll > have to first update our counter, which should be rare and inexpensive.
When we lookup from shared array only, we need to take a shared lock every lookup. Acquiring that lock is what I am trying to avoid. You are saying it's not worth optimizing that part, correct? -- Sami
