Re: Fix race in ReplicationSlotRelease for ephemeral slots

On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 6:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 8:22 AM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > The issues look real to me and could be dealt with patch v1 partially.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 9:19 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > 1. Stale name read in local_sync_slot_required(): The reused cell
> > > > holds a different name. local_sync_slot_required() might return false
> > > > (drop needed). But then the in_use && synced spinlock check sees
> > > > synced = false and skips the actual drop. The wrong decision is
> > > > caught.
> > >
> > > Yes, we could skip the actual drop. But then wouldn't we still emit
> > > the log message "dropped replication slot ..." even though no slot was
> > > actually dropped?
> >
> > With v1, we won't emit the log message unless the log is factually
> > dropped. However it did not prevent the stale read in
> > local_sync_slot_required().
> >
> > > > 2. Wrong database OID read at line 551: The reused cell holds OID_B
> > > > from the new slot. We lock OID_B, then at lines 563–565 we see synced
> > > > = false, skip the drop, and unlock OID_B at line 579. Since no drop
> > > > occurred, the cell is still the same non-synced slot, so the lock and
> > > > unlock see the same OID_B. Symmetric — no lock leak.
> > >
> > > What happens if the slot for OID_B is dropped after we lock
> > > OID_B, and then a new slot for OID_C reuses the same array entry? In
> > > that case, wouldn't the later unlock read OID_C from
> > > local_slot->data.database even though the lock was originally taken on
> > > OID_B?
> >
> > V1 stops doing the venerable second read of local_slot->data.database.
> > So if the copied value was already stale and points to OID_B, v1 is at
> > least symmetric:
> >
> > read OID_B once
> > lock OID_B
> > cell reused as OID_C
> > unlock OID_B
> >
> > But v1 seems not to fully solve issue 1.
> >
> > It can still do this:
> >
> > cell already reused before slot_database is copied
> > v1 copies OID_B from replacement slot
> > locks OID_B
> > recheck sees synced=false
> > skips drop
> > unlocks OID_B
> >
> > That is still a stale read and possibly a wasted/wrong database lock,
> > but it doesn't leak the lock, unlocks the wrong object, logs a false
> > drop, or drops the replacement slot.
> >
> > In an off-list chat with Zhijie, we kinda thought that holding the
> > lock of a wrong db for a brief time doesn't seem to harm a lot. The
> > concurrent dropping-db operation leads to this issue seems rare in
> > practice. He stated that the deletion of the slot seems unavoidable
> > because we have to acquire the database lock after releasing the
> > replication slot lock to avoid the deadlock with the startup/drop db
> > operation. Therefore, he prefered keeping the design simple and
> > avoiding the fatal issue over doing a broader refactoring work.
> >
>
> +1. I also think this change is not worth it.

I am also OK with the scope of change made by patch 1.

> > don't have a strong opinion on this. Still attaching the refactoring
> > patch to do some clean-up in case someone thinks it's worthwhile.
> >
>
> I feel even if there is an argument to do such a refactoring, it can
> be done separately.

Makes sense to me.

--
Regards,
Xuneng Zhou
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.