Re: pg_replication_origin_drop API potential race condition

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 04:27:34
Message-ID: CAHut+PtLxGUpUvxk_-T6xG=7UWpT=82fzdXh+Wgvbkg0x4U+oA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-02-04 04:41:27 Re: a curious case of force_parallel_mode = on with jit'ing
Previous Message Ajin Cherian 2021-02-04 04:24:51 Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?