Rename assorted LWLock tranches.

Choose names that fit into the conventions for wait event names
(particularly, that multi-word names are in the style MultiWordName)
and hopefully convey more information to non-hacker users than the
previous names did.

Also rename SerializablePredicateLockListLock to
SerializablePredicateListLock; the old name was long enough to cause
table formatting problems, plus the double occurrence of "Lock" seems
confusing/error-prone.

Also change a couple of particularly opaque LWLock field names.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/28683.1589405363@sss.pgh.pa.us

Author: tglsfdc

doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ GetSessionDsmHandle(void)
 	dsa_space = shm_toc_allocate(toc, SESSION_DSA_SIZE);
 	dsa = dsa_create_in_place(dsa_space,
 							  SESSION_DSA_SIZE,
-							  LWTRANCHE_SESSION_DSA,
+							  LWTRANCHE_PER_SESSION_DSA,
 							  seg);
 	shm_toc_insert(toc, SESSION_KEY_DSA, dsa_space);
 

src/backend/access/common/session.c

@@ -889,7 +889,7 @@ tbm_prepare_shared_iterate(TIDBitmap *tbm)
 		pg_atomic_add_fetch_u32(&ptchunks->refcount, 1);
 
 	/* Initialize the iterator lock */
-	LWLockInitialize(&istate->lock, LWTRANCHE_TBM);
+	LWLockInitialize(&istate->lock, LWTRANCHE_SHARED_TIDBITMAP);
 
 	/* Initialize the shared iterator state */
 	istate->schunkbit = 0;

src/backend/nodes/tidbitmap.c

@@ -506,7 +506,7 @@ ReplicationOriginShmemInit(void)
 	{
 		int			i;
 
-		replication_states_ctl->tranche_id = LWTRANCHE_REPLICATION_ORIGIN;
+		replication_states_ctl->tranche_id = LWTRANCHE_REPLICATION_ORIGIN_STATE;
 
 		MemSet(replication_states, 0, ReplicationOriginShmemSize());
 

src/backend/replication/logical/origin.c

@@ -153,7 +153,8 @@ ReplicationSlotsShmemInit(void)
 
 			/* everything else is zeroed by the memset above */
 			SpinLockInit(&slot->mutex);
-			LWLockInitialize(&slot->io_in_progress_lock, LWTRANCHE_REPLICATION_SLOT_IO_IN_PROGRESS);
+			LWLockInitialize(&slot->io_in_progress_lock,
+							 LWTRANCHE_REPLICATION_SLOT_IO);
 			ConditionVariableInit(&slot->active_cv);
 		}
 	}

src/backend/replication/slot.c

@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ InitBufferPool(void)
 							 LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_CONTENT);
 
 			LWLockInitialize(BufferDescriptorGetIOLock(buf),
-							 LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_IO_IN_PROGRESS);
+							 LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_IO);
 		}
 
 		/* Correct last entry of linked list */

src/backend/storage/buffer/buf_init.c

@@ -936,13 +936,13 @@ LockAcquireExtended(const LOCKTAG *locktag,
 		 * FastPathStrongRelationLocks->counts becomes visible after we test
 		 * it has yet to begin to transfer fast-path locks.
 		 */
-		LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+		LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 		if (FastPathStrongRelationLocks->count[fasthashcode] != 0)
 			acquired = false;
 		else
 			acquired = FastPathGrantRelationLock(locktag->locktag_field2,
 												 lockmode);
-		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 		if (acquired)
 		{
 			/*
@@ -2085,10 +2085,10 @@ LockRelease(const LOCKTAG *locktag, LOCKMODE lockmode, bool sessionLock)
 		 * We might not find the lock here, even if we originally entered it
 		 * here.  Another backend may have moved it to the main table.
 		 */
-		LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+		LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 		released = FastPathUnGrantRelationLock(locktag->locktag_field2,
 											   lockmode);
-		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 		if (released)
 		{
 			RemoveLocalLock(locallock);
@@ -2291,7 +2291,7 @@ LockReleaseAll(LOCKMETHODID lockmethodid, bool allLocks)
 			 */
 			if (!have_fast_path_lwlock)
 			{
-				LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+				LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 				have_fast_path_lwlock = true;
 			}
 
@@ -2308,7 +2308,7 @@ LockReleaseAll(LOCKMETHODID lockmethodid, bool allLocks)
 			 * transferred to the main lock table.  That's going to require
 			 * some extra work, so release our fast-path lock before starting.
 			 */
-			LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+			LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 			have_fast_path_lwlock = false;
 
 			/*
@@ -2334,7 +2334,7 @@ LockReleaseAll(LOCKMETHODID lockmethodid, bool allLocks)
 
 	/* Done with the fast-path data structures */
 	if (have_fast_path_lwlock)
-		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 
 	/*
 	 * Now, scan each lock partition separately.
@@ -2737,7 +2737,7 @@ FastPathTransferRelationLocks(LockMethod lockMethodTable, const LOCKTAG *locktag
 		PGPROC	   *proc = &ProcGlobal->allProcs[i];
 		uint32		f;
 
-		LWLockAcquire(&proc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+		LWLockAcquire(&proc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 		/*
 		 * If the target backend isn't referencing the same database as the
@@ -2746,8 +2746,8 @@ FastPathTransferRelationLocks(LockMethod lockMethodTable, const LOCKTAG *locktag
 		 *
 		 * proc->databaseId is set at backend startup time and never changes
 		 * thereafter, so it might be safe to perform this test before
-		 * acquiring &proc->backendLock.  In particular, it's certainly safe
-		 * to assume that if the target backend holds any fast-path locks, it
+		 * acquiring &proc->fpInfoLock.  In particular, it's certainly safe to
+		 * assume that if the target backend holds any fast-path locks, it
 		 * must have performed a memory-fencing operation (in particular, an
 		 * LWLock acquisition) since setting proc->databaseId.  However, it's
 		 * less clear that our backend is certain to have performed a memory
@@ -2756,7 +2756,7 @@ FastPathTransferRelationLocks(LockMethod lockMethodTable, const LOCKTAG *locktag
 		 */
 		if (proc->databaseId != locktag->locktag_field1)
 		{
-			LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+			LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 			continue;
 		}
 
@@ -2783,7 +2783,7 @@ FastPathTransferRelationLocks(LockMethod lockMethodTable, const LOCKTAG *locktag
 				if (!proclock)
 				{
 					LWLockRelease(partitionLock);
-					LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+					LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 					return false;
 				}
 				GrantLock(proclock->tag.myLock, proclock, lockmode);
@@ -2794,7 +2794,7 @@ FastPathTransferRelationLocks(LockMethod lockMethodTable, const LOCKTAG *locktag
 			/* No need to examine remaining slots. */
 			break;
 		}
-		LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 	}
 	return true;
 }
@@ -2816,7 +2816,7 @@ FastPathGetRelationLockEntry(LOCALLOCK *locallock)
 	Oid			relid = locktag->locktag_field2;
 	uint32		f;
 
-	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 	for (f = 0; f < FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND; f++)
 	{
@@ -2839,7 +2839,7 @@ FastPathGetRelationLockEntry(LOCALLOCK *locallock)
 		if (!proclock)
 		{
 			LWLockRelease(partitionLock);
-			LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+			LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 			ereport(ERROR,
 					(errcode(ERRCODE_OUT_OF_MEMORY),
 					 errmsg("out of shared memory"),
@@ -2854,7 +2854,7 @@ FastPathGetRelationLockEntry(LOCALLOCK *locallock)
 		break;
 	}
 
-	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 
 	/* Lock may have already been transferred by some other backend. */
 	if (proclock == NULL)
@@ -2980,7 +2980,7 @@ GetLockConflicts(const LOCKTAG *locktag, LOCKMODE lockmode, int *countp)
 			if (proc == MyProc)
 				continue;
 
-			LWLockAcquire(&proc->backendLock, LW_SHARED);
+			LWLockAcquire(&proc->fpInfoLock, LW_SHARED);
 
 			/*
 			 * If the target backend isn't referencing the same database as
@@ -2992,7 +2992,7 @@ GetLockConflicts(const LOCKTAG *locktag, LOCKMODE lockmode, int *countp)
 			 */
 			if (proc->databaseId != locktag->locktag_field1)
 			{
-				LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+				LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 				continue;
 			}
 
@@ -3030,7 +3030,7 @@ GetLockConflicts(const LOCKTAG *locktag, LOCKMODE lockmode, int *countp)
 				break;
 			}
 
-			LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+			LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 		}
 	}
 
@@ -3599,7 +3599,7 @@ GetLockStatusData(void)
 		PGPROC	   *proc = &ProcGlobal->allProcs[i];
 		uint32		f;
 
-		LWLockAcquire(&proc->backendLock, LW_SHARED);
+		LWLockAcquire(&proc->fpInfoLock, LW_SHARED);
 
 		for (f = 0; f < FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND; ++f)
 		{
@@ -3659,7 +3659,7 @@ GetLockStatusData(void)
 			el++;
 		}
 
-		LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -4381,7 +4381,7 @@ lock_twophase_postabort(TransactionId xid, uint16 info,
  *		as MyProc->lxid, you might wonder if we really need both.  The
  *		difference is that MyProc->lxid is set and cleared unlocked, and
  *		examined by procarray.c, while fpLocalTransactionId is protected by
- *		backendLock and is used only by the locking subsystem.  Doing it this
+ *		fpInfoLock and is used only by the locking subsystem.  Doing it this
  *		way makes it easier to verify that there are no funny race conditions.
  *
  *		We don't bother recording this lock in the local lock table, since it's
@@ -4393,7 +4393,7 @@ VirtualXactLockTableInsert(VirtualTransactionId vxid)
 {
 	Assert(VirtualTransactionIdIsValid(vxid));
 
-	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 	Assert(MyProc->backendId == vxid.backendId);
 	Assert(MyProc->fpLocalTransactionId == InvalidLocalTransactionId);
@@ -4402,7 +4402,7 @@ VirtualXactLockTableInsert(VirtualTransactionId vxid)
 	MyProc->fpVXIDLock = true;
 	MyProc->fpLocalTransactionId = vxid.localTransactionId;
 
-	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -4422,14 +4422,14 @@ VirtualXactLockTableCleanup(void)
 	/*
 	 * Clean up shared memory state.
 	 */
-	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+	LWLockAcquire(&MyProc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 	fastpath = MyProc->fpVXIDLock;
 	lxid = MyProc->fpLocalTransactionId;
 	MyProc->fpVXIDLock = false;
 	MyProc->fpLocalTransactionId = InvalidLocalTransactionId;
 
-	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->backendLock);
+	LWLockRelease(&MyProc->fpInfoLock);
 
 	/*
 	 * If fpVXIDLock has been cleared without touching fpLocalTransactionId,
@@ -4485,13 +4485,13 @@ VirtualXactLock(VirtualTransactionId vxid, bool wait)
 	 * against the ones we're waiting for.  The target backend will only set
 	 * or clear lxid while holding this lock.
 	 */
-	LWLockAcquire(&proc->backendLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
+	LWLockAcquire(&proc->fpInfoLock, LW_EXCLUSIVE);
 
 	/* If the transaction has ended, our work here is done. */
 	if (proc->backendId != vxid.backendId
 		|| proc->fpLocalTransactionId != vxid.localTransactionId)
 	{
-		LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 		return true;
 	}
 
@@ -4501,7 +4501,7 @@ VirtualXactLock(VirtualTransactionId vxid, bool wait)
 	 */
 	if (!wait)
 	{
-		LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+		LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 		return false;
 	}
 
@@ -4526,7 +4526,7 @@ VirtualXactLock(VirtualTransactionId vxid, bool wait)
 		if (!proclock)
 		{
 			LWLockRelease(partitionLock);
-			LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+			LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 			ereport(ERROR,
 					(errcode(ERRCODE_OUT_OF_MEMORY),
 					 errmsg("out of shared memory"),
@@ -4540,7 +4540,7 @@ VirtualXactLock(VirtualTransactionId vxid, bool wait)
 	}
 
 	/* Done with proc->fpLockBits */
-	LWLockRelease(&proc->backendLock);
+	LWLockRelease(&proc->fpInfoLock);
 
 	/* Time to wait. */
 	(void) LockAcquire(&tag, ShareLock, false, false);