RE: CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER vs. pg_dump, etc.

From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Jeff Davis' <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: CREATE SUBSCRIPTION ... SERVER vs. pg_dump, etc.
Date: 2026-08-04 10:07:55
Message-ID: OS9PR01MB12149272CBB893D0089E03FC4F5D42@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Jeff,

> New v4 series attached.

Thanks for updating the patch. While seeing 0001, I found that GetSubscription()
and SubscriptionConninfo() are called without acquiring the lock for the
subscription. Is there a possibility that DDL commands are executed concurrently
and the cache can be invalidated in-between, thus it causes inconsistent results?
I tested concurrent ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET OWNER command in maybe_reread_subscription(),
but the cache is not invalidated thus changing the owner is not reflected.
Is it OK?

Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message shveta malik 2026-08-04 10:13:54 Re: Support EXCEPT for TABLES IN SCHEMA publications
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2026-08-04 10:03:13 Re: [PATCH] Fix vacuum_delay_point happening inside lock