On Friday, July 3, 2026 5:03 PM Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 03, 2026 at 08:08:13AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > On Friday, July 3, 2026 1:53 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > That said, what about also fixing DropSubscription() like in the 0002 > attached? > > > (that would also produce those elog() messages in case of concurrent > > > DROP or ALTER). > > > > For the patch, I'm not sure if we must repeat the checks twice. > > Thanks for looking at it! > > > Could we > > simply move the original checks to after we take the lock? At least, > > the > > GetSubscription() call and the password check can be moved there and > > old codes can be deleted. > > I'm not sure which checks you refer to. The ones that are keep before the lock > acquisition are because we don't want to lock an object we don't have > privileges on (see remark 3 in [1]).
I was referring to the password_required check and the GetSubscription() call. I think failing the password_required check does not necessarily mean we do not have the permission to lock the subscription, It seems to me we only need to disallow changing the subscription data in this case. In DropSubscription, we take a lock on the subscription regardless of password_required. Best Regards, Hou zj
