Re: Concurrent DROP TABLESPACE can miss a shared dependency

On 2026-09-09 We 7:39 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 2026-09-08 Tu 7:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:28:51PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 23:28, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I think this should be applied as a single squashed commit,
>>>> (soon so I can rely on it for the fixes I mentioned).
>> Yeah, a backpatch seems adapted.  That's a nasty problem.  It's
>> unlikely going to be hit in practice, but we can say that for a bunch
>> of stuff that gets backpatched.
>>
>>>> I think it should be backpatched - all live branches have the same
>>>> problem.
>>> Agreed that this should be backpatched to all live branches.
>> Andrew, are you planning to work on it?  I did not spend cycles
>> looking at the details and the command patterns involved, on the
>> premise that you would handle that.  Saying that, the premise of the
>> patch feels sound with a few more additional shared locks to prevent
>> the concurrent manipulations.
>>
>
> Thanks for looking.
>
>
> Yes, planning to work on it today.
>
>
>

Pushed, thanks all.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com