From: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 12:00:03 -0700
Message-ID: <5dff4caf26f45ce224a33a5e18e110b93a351b2f.camel@j-davis.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1LJEMfdxpV7xDhR3qOFoSt3LuKbbu5kRMBfYJ2imT8Few@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e5892973ae2a80a1a3e0266806640dae3c428100.camel@j-davis.com>
<CAA4eK1LJEMfdxpV7xDhR3qOFoSt3LuKbbu5kRMBfYJ2imT8Few@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2023-09-11 at 08:59 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Can we think of calling walrcv_check_conninfo() when the following
> check is true (MySubscription->passwordrequired &&
> !superuser_arg(MySubscription->owner))? IIUC this has to be done for
> both apply_worker and tablesync_worker.
To me, it would make sense to just have walrcv_connect() do both checks
(a) and (b) -- rather than only check (b) -- when must_use_password is
true. Separating these checks (which are really two parts of the same
check) led to this problem in the first place.
Another thought: we may also need to invalidate the subscription worker
in cases where a user loses their superuser status.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql@j-davis.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state
In-Reply-To: <5dff4caf26f45ce224a33a5e18e110b93a351b2f.camel@j-davis.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox