> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > > hmm, can we really avoid a shared lock when reading from shared memory? > > > considering access for both reads and writes can be concurrent to shared > > > memory. We are also taking an exclusive lock when writing a new tranche. > > > > We probably want to hold a lock while we 1) increment LWLockCounter and > > copy a new tranche name to memory and > > In the last rev, I removed the spinlock acquired on ShmemLock in-lieu of > a LWLock. This is because I wanted a single LWLock acquisition while > both incrementing LWLockCounter and writing to shared memory, and > doing this much work, particularly writing to shared memory, > with a spinlock seemed inappropriate. With that said, this is not high > concurrency of performance sensitive activity at all, so perhaps I was > being overly paranoid.
Here is v12 that replaces the LWLock to access the shared memory with a ShmemLock and implements a local counter. -- Sami
v12-0002-Tests-for-LWLock-tranche-registration-improvemen.patch
Description: Binary data
v12-0001-Improve-LWLock-tranche-registration.patch
Description: Binary data
