From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_replication_origin_drop API potential race condition |
Date: | 2021-02-04 08:00:56 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PsW6+7Ucb1sxjSNBaSYPGAVzQFbAEg4y1KsYQiGCnyGeQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 9:57 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 11:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How about if we call replorigin_by_name() inside replorigin_drop after
> > > acquiring the lock? Wouldn't that close this race condition? We are
> > > doing something similar for pg_replication_origin_advance().
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that seems ok.
> >
> > I wonder if it is better to isolate that locked portion
> > (replyorigin_by_name + replorigin_drop) so that in addition to being
> > called from pg_replication_origin_drop, we can call it internally from
> > PG code to safely drop the origins.
> >
>
> Yeah, I think that would be really good.
PSA a patch which I think implements what we are talking about.
----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-replorigin_drop_by_name.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Wang, Shenhao | 2021-02-04 09:25:00 | parse mistake in ecpg connect string |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-02-04 07:30:37 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |