Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 15:16:56 +0000
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Roman Eskin <r.eskin@arenadata.io>,
	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: <ail/6I6mcitovsUo@bdtpg>
References: <aebf583b-b904-4035-a1c1-a4c5ad064dec@iki.fi>
 <ahYAKgbx05IQdjwR@bdtpg>
 <3963e573-4852-4d25-b741-7c5c7e1f9140@iki.fi>
 <ah1PIyqtT+427dWb@bdtpg>
 <02e28438bd448ff4ee8f6fd78e6b74e657172d73.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aiLKkTC6QBt8i35P@bdtpg>
 <71eb9a8835a28165939da567a9d649fe6d21bfa7.camel@j-davis.com>
 <aie26jMSoEMrHLaI@bdtpg>
 <0fc145b9b5cf3f59207cf4ca60270448a2891c46.camel@j-davis.com>
 <ailZCCmS0bGlNBfe@bdtpg>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0a3rMzZuDzpUC49O"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ailZCCmS0bGlNBfe@bdtpg>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ail/6I6mcitovsUo%40bdtpg>
Precedence: bulk


--0a3rMzZuDzpUC49O
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 12:31:04PM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2026 at 02:44:10PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2026-06-09 at 06:47 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > > In order to be on the safe side of things, the attached now iterates
> > > through all
> > > matching entries (and not only the last one).
> > 
> > I don't think:
> > 
> >   if (context == PROCESS_UTILITY_TOPLEVEL)
> > 
> > is quite right.
> > 
> > In any case, I don't think mixing the tracking entries between entirely
> > different DDL commands is a good idea. If you execute DDL inside of SPI
> > in its own subtransaction, and it inserts a tracking entry to recheck
> > something, and then you roll back the subxact, you don't want the
> > tracking entry to then cause the outer transaction to fail. I didn't
> > test this, so if there's something preventing this kind of problem, let
> > me know.
> > 
> > We probably need to track where we are in the stack of ProcessUtility()
> > calls and keep the tracking entries separate, and always remove entries
> > from that level on return (or rollback).
> 
> I think you are right. I changed this in the attached so that aclcheck_tracked_count
> is saved on entry and restored on return of each ProcessUtility call, so that each
> nesting level's entries are kept separate.
> 
> Also, the reset is now done whenever tracking is initialized (means at the
> outermost ProcessUtility call that starts tracking).
> 
> I think that addresses your concerns and it also fixes the issues reported
> by the cfbot (that I mentioned up-thread).
> 
> I also added more tests related to nested calls.

PFA a new version of v26, it adds a new test as compared to the v26 previously
shared.

Regards,

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

--0a3rMzZuDzpUC49O
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v26-0001-Recheck-permissions-after-lock-acquisition-in-de.patch"