On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Friday, July 3, 2026 1:53 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > but given the patch's simplicity, I recommend backpatching.
> >
> > That's right but that would only improve error messages. That said, looking
> > closer, they are elog() ones, so "not expected" to occur so yeah backpatch
> > does make sense.
>
> +1 for backpatching, even if it's rare, the "ERROR: tuple concurrently updated"
> message seems confusing to me.
>
I also think backpatching makes sense. BTW, I have a comment:
+ heap_freetuple(tup);
+ tup = SearchSysCacheCopy2(SUBSCRIPTIONNAME, ObjectIdGetDatum(MyDatabaseId),
+ CStringGetDatum(stmt->subname));
heap_freetuple() could be done before acquiring the lock, is there a
reason to keep it after lock?
> >
> > 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. 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.
>
Isn't the same true for the AlterSubscription() case as well? Also, I
noticed that AlterPublication() does the same trick but it uses
PUBLICATIONOID cacheid, so shouldn't we use SUBSCRIPTIONOID cacheid
here as well? I think this is to prevent the case where the same name
pub/sub is recreated after lock.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
