Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:31:04 +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: <ailZCCmS0bGlNBfe@bdtpg>
References: <agsCqlLTytZCudMv@bdtpg>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="HMAKO4gjDTq7S4gl"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0fc145b9b5cf3f59207cf4ca60270448a2891c46.camel@j-davis.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ailZCCmS0bGlNBfe%40bdtpg>
Precedence: bulk


--HMAKO4gjDTq7S4gl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

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.

Regards,

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

--HMAKO4gjDTq7S4gl
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v26-0001-Recheck-permissions-after-lock-acquisition-in-de.patch"