Re: Re-read subscription state after lock in AlterSubscription

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 03:45:34PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, July 3, 2026 1:53 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > but given the patch's simplicity, I recommend backpatching.
> > >
> > > That's right but that would only improve error messages. That said, looking
> > > closer, they are elog() ones, so "not expected" to occur so yeah backpatch
> > > does make sense.
> >
> > +1 for backpatching, even if it's rare, the "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated"
> > message seems confusing to me.
> >
> 
> I also think backpatching makes sense. BTW, I have a comment:

Thanks for looking at it!

> + heap_freetuple(tup);
> + tup = SearchSysCacheCopy2(SUBSCRIPTIONNAME, ObjectIdGetDatum(MyDatabaseId),
> +   CStringGetDatum(stmt->subname));
> 
> heap_freetuple() could be done before acquiring the lock, is there a
> reason to keep it after lock?

No particular reason, could be done before. Done in 0001 attached.

> 
> > >
> > > That said, what about also fixing DropSubscription() like in the 0002 attached?
> > > (that would also produce those elog() messages in case of concurrent DROP or
> > > ALTER).
> >
> > For the patch, I'm not sure if we must repeat the checks twice. Could we
> > simply move the original checks to after we take the lock? At least, the
> > GetSubscription() call and the password check can be moved there and old codes
> > can be deleted.
> >
> 
> Isn't the same true for the AlterSubscription() case as well?

I think there is no need to lock if we are later going to disallow changing the
subscription data due to the password_required/superuser check.

That said moving it as suggested by Hou-san, does simplify the code and the lock
is not held for long, so done that way in 0001.

> Also, I
> noticed that AlterPublication() does the same trick but it uses
> PUBLICATIONOID cacheid, so shouldn't we use SUBSCRIPTIONOID cacheid
> here as well? I think this is to prevent the case where the same name
> pub/sub is recreated after lock.

Oh right and I did it that way in 0001 and 0002.

But while doing this and looking closely, I'm not sure AlterPublication() does
it right. Indeed, in theory, the OID could have been re-used too (between the
time we did the name resolution and the time we lock the publication). I think
what is needed is something similar to RangeVarGetRelidExtended(), means do the
name resolution, acl check (ownership) and lock acquisition, all in unison.

That's what 0003 is trying to achieve for the subscription and 0004 for the 
publication.

What do you think?

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com