Re: Concurrent DROP TABLESPACE can miss a shared dependency

On 2026-09-08 Tu 7:25 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2026 at 07:28:51PM +0530, Ayush Tiwari wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 23:28, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I think this should be applied as a single squashed commit,
>>> (soon so I can rely on it for the fixes I mentioned).
> Yeah, a backpatch seems adapted. That's a nasty problem. It's
> unlikely going to be hit in practice, but we can say that for a bunch
> of stuff that gets backpatched.
>
>>> I think it should be backpatched - all live branches have the same problem.
>> Agreed that this should be backpatched to all live branches.
> Andrew, are you planning to work on it? I did not spend cycles
> looking at the details and the command patterns involved, on the
> premise that you would handle that. Saying that, the premise of the
> patch feels sound with a few more additional shared locks to prevent
> the concurrent manipulations.
>

Thanks for looking.

Yes, planning to work on it today.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com