Hi, > > Thanks! > > > > On 26/03/2026 18:34, Sami Imseih wrote: > >>> I propose the attached refactorings to make this less confusing. See > >>> commit messages for details. > >> > >> I only took a look at 0001 so far, and I do agree with this statement > >> in the commit message: > > I committed these now, but I'm all ears if you still have comments on > the rest of the patches.
Sorry for the delay. I see you committed the rest. The only issue I found is with d6eba30 +/* backend-local copy of NamedLWLockTranches->num_user_defined */ +static int LocalNumUserDefinedTranches; The comment here should reference "LWLockTranches->num_user_defined " instead. >> rename RequestNamedLWLockTranche() to RequestUserDefinedLWLockTranche() >> and LWLockNewTrancheId() to RegisterUserDefinedLWLockTranche() > I'd rather not change RequestNamedLWLockTranche(), because I think > LWLockNewTrancheId() is better and should be used in new code. That's fair. >> v19 is already changing the signature of LWLockNewTrancheId(), so maybe >> improving the names of these APIs makes sense to do. > Oh, I didn't realize we changed the LWLockNewTrancheId() signature! > Yeah, if we're changing it anyway, we might as well rename it. I'm not > sure if I like RegisterUserDefinedLWLockTranche() better, but let's > think it through. Maybe, RegisterNewLWLockTrancheId() could be more meaningful? Also, there are a few places in lwlock.c where "named tranches" is mentioned. Maybe we should just say "user-defined tranches" instead? -- Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
