Re: Fix race in ReplicationSlotRelease for ephemeral slots

On Sat, Jun 20, 2026 at 12:11 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:06 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > OK, how about elaborate it a bit like this:
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * In the small window between getting the slot to drop and
> > > * locking the database, there is a possibility of a parallel
> > > * database drop by the startup process and the creation of a new
> > > * slot by the user. This new user-created slot may end up using
> > > * the same shared memory as that of 'local_slot'.
> > > *
> > > * If that happens, local_slot now describes the replacement slot:
> > > * local_sync_slot_required() may have made its drop decision using
> > > * the replacement slot's name or invalidation state, and slot_database
> > > * may refer to the replacement slot's database. Thus check if
> > > * local_slot is still a synced slot before performing the actual drop.
> > > * This does not prove it is the original slot, but it prevents dropping
> > > * an ordinary user-created replacement slot, and the copied database OID
> > > * keeps lock/unlock symmetric. The remaining risk is limited to this
> > > * cleanup cycle, such as briefly holding an unrelated database lock, and
> > > * is acceptable here because this race is rare.
> > > */
> > >
> >
> > Okay inspired from your and Fujii-san's version, here is a third version:
> > /*
> > * In the small window between getting the slot to drop and
> > * locking the database, there is a possibility of a parallel
> > * database drop by the startup process and the creation of a new
> > * slot by the user. This new user-created slot may end up using
> > * the same shared memory as that of 'local_slot'.
> > *
> > * Because local_slot still points to a reusable slot-array entry,
> > * its fields (name, database OID, invalidation state) may already
> > * describe such a replacement slot by the time we reach here. That
> > * means the drop decision made by local_sync_slot_required() above
> > * could have been based on the replacement slot's data, and
> > * slot_database could refer to an unrelated database. The recheck
> > * below keeps us from actually dropping a user-created replacement
> > * slot; the residual risk is confined to this cycle (for example,
> > * briefly locking an unrelated database) and is acceptable because
> > * the race is rare and non-fatal.
> > */
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> LGTM. It looks well-articulated.
>

Thanks, I'll push this as soon as the PG20 branch opens.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.