Re: BUG with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions still exists

From: Imran Zaheer <imran(dot)zhir(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions still exists
Date: 2026-06-03 17:43:05
Message-ID: CA+UBfakSLtA3MTa1LQSXmqk3J_U+63OaCHJFX5Vdo9zxG5RZXA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi

During testing this patch I also noticed that other sessions are also
able to drop the temporary table.

postgres=# drop table pg_temp_0.empty_table;
DROP TABLE

Above command works just fine from the other session.

I was able to fix that by adding the same check in
heap_drop_with_catalog in heap.c, but I'm not sure whether it's the
right place to add this check.

@@ -1847,6 +1847,11 @@ heap_drop_with_catalog(Oid relid)
*/
rel = relation_open(relid, AccessExclusiveLock);

+ if (RELATION_IS_OTHER_TEMP(rel))
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED),
+ errmsg("cannot access temporary tables
of other sessions")));
+
/*
* There can no longer be anyone *else* touching the relation, but we
* might still have open queries or cursors, or pending
trigger events, in

Let me know if I am missing something.

Thanks
Imran Zaheer

On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 8:51 PM Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2026 at 10:20 PM Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > Session 1 here does not create a temporary table (most likely a copy &
> > paste error), but I could reproduce this error as you suggested:
> >
>
> Sorry, I wrote it manually and forgot to specify "TEMP". It is implied here,
> of course.
>
> >
> > At a first glance the check seems reasonable. One tiny wording nit: the
> > comment in ExtendBufferedRelLocal says "... covering any attempt to
> > extend local relation.", but to avoid any confusing with the meaning of
> > RELATION_IS_LOCAL I'd argue that "covering any attempt to extend a
> > temporary relation" would be slightly clearer.
> >
>
> Thanks for looking into this! I agree with your comment.
>
> Please, see v2 patch with fixed comment.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Daniil Davydov

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2026-06-03 17:50:15 Re: PostgreSQL 19 Beta 1 release announcement draft
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2026-06-03 17:36:14 Re: Report oldest xmin source when autovacuum cannot remove tuples