RE: ReplicationSlotRelease() crashes when the instance is in the single user mode
Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>
To: 'Amit Kapila' <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-02-28T05:41:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Dear Amit, > I understand that we may not have a clear use case for this to work in > single-user mode. But how will we define the boundary in similar > cases? I mean, we should have some rule for such exposed functions, > and it should be followed uniformly. Now, if one needs a bigger or > complex change to make the function work in single-user mode, then it > is easy to take an exception from what is currently being followed in > the code. However, if the change is as trivial as you proposed in the > first email, why not go with that and make this function work in > single-user mode? Hmm, the opinion about this is completely opposite with other reviewers. I want to ask them again how you feel. I also added Tom who pointed out in the initial thread. Question: how you feel to restrict SQL functions for slot during the single-user mode? Nobody has considered use cases for it; we do not have concrete theory and similar cases. And needed band-aid to work seems very small. Best regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
Commits
-
Fix assertion failure with replication slot release in single-user mode
- 8ed079cad824 13.23 landed
- 32d388d00f9f 14.20 landed
- 818be9b73c94 15.15 landed
- fea1cc3f75ff 16.11 landed
- 07a302387176 17.7 landed
- ea1c6b0b0aec 18.0 landed
- 1f2e51e3c7c2 19 (unreleased) landed