Message-ID: <f851a9ff-c551-4e2d-b52a-e3c9fb0c0606@uni-muenster.de>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 21:16:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Fix bug with accessing to temporary tables of other sessions
To: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>,
 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
 Soumya S Murali <soumyamurali.work@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Stepan Neretin <slpmcf@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Mohamed Ali <moali.pg@gmail.com>, Nazneen Jafri <jafrinazneen@gmail.com>,
 Shawn McCoy <shawn.the.mccoy@gmail.com>
References: <e58a9580-7bbf-4d70-ad99-833fab77cf88@uni-muenster.de>
 <CAJDiXghBO_TqvHOSui8MOxiFmwLT20+SAnH5nW1rpWHk7Jwffg@mail.gmail.com>
 <402bbc8d-728b-4467-8024-31c2bc101ead@uni-muenster.de>
 <CAJDiXgi0JFk0f2KWWQkzLBC5P7erX9WP18qqnbi-rjZ-K-P=3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMtXxw_hBNuAWQUdSRMpoeRVRYr+5+S7p0bSzuqtHxfpzJPd3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6614954-6c71-451a-a1d7-345d255b4afb@uni-muenster.de>
 <CAMtXxw_2VnP5U7U+2ObOCC2voEkAzUqAgH=rPTQBXrb_8K=pyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtsGSywUExfKMakAuRz8-+61d-4XHkVf=pNQeYTZTVYoA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMtXxw8J7L0r8aXt9NBFfqqSnaNyU=-_Uq4tW4aO3PHyVeXLAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdvLCgXgdhSvuPCkek+r=P4E-WiNceWfh7UQztiMzfFcvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aegLPbRmc95UbOZG@paquier.xyz>
 <CAJDiXgim8OjxuWZ2EYs2nV+1kTcACH2cNURgzyCye8301PmR0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: de-DE, en-GB
From: Jim Jones <jim.jones@uni-muenster.de>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJDiXgim8OjxuWZ2EYs2nV+1kTcACH2cNURgzyCye8301PmR0w@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/f851a9ff-c551-4e2d-b52a-e3c9fb0c0606%40uni-muenster.de>
Precedence: bulk

Hi

On 25/04/2026 10:34, Daniil Davydov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 6:41 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2026 at 01:54:47PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>> OK. I'm going to push and backpatch if no objections.
>>
>> As a whole, we were not really convinced that this is something that
>> needs any kind of specific fix
> 
> It is a bug, obviously. TBH, I don't see any reason for not fixing it.
> 
>> especially not something that should
>> be backpatched.


I see there are differing opinions among committers on this. How should
we proceed? Do we really consider the current behaviour acceptable, or
should we invest effort in improving the tests (and potentially
backpatch it)?

Best, Jim