On 2026-04-23 Th 2:47 AM, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
Thanks for printing out that. Yes, they are similar.
I agree with what Tom said in [2]:
```
This is not a bug. This is a superuser intentionally breaking
the system by corrupting the catalogs. There are any number
of ways to cause trouble with ill-advised manual updates to a
catalog table. Try, eg, "DELETE FROM pg_proc" (... but not in
a database you care about).
```
So, let me take back this patch.
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1538113.1768921841@sss.pgh.pa.us
In this case, it is a very corner case but not something superuser intentionally breaks.
For example, a concurrent tablespace drop + database ddl to assign a different tablespace or default.
We aren't acquiring Access Share lock on the DB in this function (intentional) so it is a good practice
to do the null checks. Of course, it makes more sense to add this comment while doing a code review.
I will let Tom and others chime in with their thoughts on fixing this.
Attached an injection point test to show the race. Not intended to commit.
I agree if there's a race condition we should protect against it. I don't much like the idea of silently ignoring it, though. Raising an error seems more like the right thing to do.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
