Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 18:36:49 +0000
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Roman Eskin <r.eskin@arenadata.io>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>,
	Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3
Message-ID: <ad/awXLnMuc6Rf5M@bdtpg>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoaCJ5-Zx5R0uN+ah4EZU1SamY1PneaW5O617FsNKavmfw@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3bfa3e18ee401cca52aaf877997898232640236.camel@j-davis.com>
 <CA+TgmoaE0WtGei1A=P_af8Qb7FAdnwsSJJv9V56Q6yT=1rV9ig@mail.gmail.com>
 <298d95b5570b91a7d0ee42895e79890feefc67d6.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aC8VT2OjOyPJuKv/@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmobxpkwwjfM4EkZxyKpJ3S0CqQPXPkqQn4YmCHBeMDypdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aD2u/GR/yaRkBJdJ@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmoZh8yXoQ2AF-VFSTswhin0o+BZ78AaOsWZskCW1GHBd6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <aEJ+oNANWutG8aDv@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <9f5f0dd4-96d5-4d90-9436-62d96e0298f9@arenadata.io>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9f5f0dd4-96d5-4d90-9436-62d96e0298f9@arenadata.io>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ad/awXLnMuc6Rf5M%40bdtpg>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 06:33:39PM +1000, Roman Eskin wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> Apologies for jumping into this conversation.

No problem at all, you're more than welcome to join it!

> Our customers have also encountered a similar issue with the
> concurrent drop of a dependent object.

Yeah, it's not something so rare that one could thought (we also see a non
negligible of them in our fleet).

> In our code (in the Greengage
> DB), we implemented a fix analogous to one of the first versions of
> Bertrand's approach, using locking within the pg_depend code.
> 
> In the long term, however, we are interested in aligning with the
> upstream Postgres code as much as possible.
> 
> Since there haven't been any recent updates in this thread, we were
> wondering if there are any plans for the next steps regarding this
> issue.

Apologies for this late reply. I plan to work on this again in the coming weeks.
The next step I've in mind is to build the list of the P1 cases described above.

Once we've that list I think we could start discussing the next steps.

Regards,

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