Re: Fix bug with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions

From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>, Soumya S Murali <soumyamurali(dot)work(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stepan Neretin <slpmcf(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mohamed Ali <moali(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazneen Jafri <jafrinazneen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shawn McCoy <shawn(dot)the(dot)mccoy(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Fix bug with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions
Date: 2026-06-30 11:46:45
Message-ID: CAPpHfdunb6vmJ-pV5BKs38QTdnqSnBskPgwiZFpEqsyUgQ9QPw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, Daniil!

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 7:49 PM Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:39 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 9:58 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 09:12:58AM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 8, 2026 at 9:19 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > >> If you wish me to look at this patch set in details, I may be able to
> > > >> do so around the beginning of next week. I'm not sure that there is a
> > > >> strong urgency in tackling this issue for this minor release, this
> > > >> could wait a bit more..
> > > >
> > > > Any news from your side?
> > >
> > > (Forgot -hackers and other folks in CC, sorry about that.)
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I have not been able to get back to it this week, and
> > > next week is moot. Perhaps it is better to not wait for me here, so
> > > feel free to go ahead as you feel.
> >
> > Thank you for noticing. I've pushed this today. I have to slightly
> > revise the tests to run on 18 and 17 (different log messages, and
> > default value of log_lock_waits).
> >
>
> Thank you very much for your help!)

You're welcome )

> BTW, we still have another problem with temp tables. Tom wrote [1] about it
> within this thread:
>
> > Reality is that we cannot know whether an
> > unqualified-name RangeVar references a temp table until we do a
> > catalog lookup, so IMO we should not have a relpersistence field there
> > at all. At best it means something quite different from what it means
> > elsewhere, and that's a recipe for confusion. But changing that would
> > not be a bug fix (AFAIK) but refactoring to reduce the probability of
> > future bugs.
>
> I'll try to implement that next month. But if someone gets ahead of me, please
> attach me in CC of the new thread.
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4075754.1774378690%40sss.pgh.pa.us

Just a friendly ping on how is it going.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2026-06-30 11:50:10 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message prankware 2026-06-30 11:26:05 COALESCE patch