On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 8:08 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2026 at 2:06 PM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > OK, how about elaborate it a bit like this:
> >
> > /*
> > * In the small window between getting the slot to drop and
> > * locking the database, there is a possibility of a parallel
> > * database drop by the startup process and the creation of a new
> > * slot by the user. This new user-created slot may end up using
> > * the same shared memory as that of 'local_slot'.
> > *
> > * If that happens, local_slot now describes the replacement slot:
> > * local_sync_slot_required() may have made its drop decision using
> > * the replacement slot's name or invalidation state, and slot_database
> > * may refer to the replacement slot's database. Thus check if
> > * local_slot is still a synced slot before performing the actual drop.
> > * This does not prove it is the original slot, but it prevents dropping
> > * an ordinary user-created replacement slot, and the copied database OID
> > * keeps lock/unlock symmetric. The remaining risk is limited to this
> > * cleanup cycle, such as briefly holding an unrelated database lock, and
> > * is acceptable here because this race is rare.
> > */
> >
>
> Okay inspired from your and Fujii-san's version, here is a third version:
> /*
> * In the small window between getting the slot to drop and
> * locking the database, there is a possibility of a parallel
> * database drop by the startup process and the creation of a new
> * slot by the user. This new user-created slot may end up using
> * the same shared memory as that of 'local_slot'.
> *
> * Because local_slot still points to a reusable slot-array entry,
> * its fields (name, database OID, invalidation state) may already
> * describe such a replacement slot by the time we reach here. That
> * means the drop decision made by local_sync_slot_required() above
> * could have been based on the replacement slot's data, and
> * slot_database could refer to an unrelated database. The recheck
> * below keeps us from actually dropping a user-created replacement
> * slot; the residual risk is confined to this cycle (for example,
> * briefly locking an unrelated database) and is acceptable because
> * the race is rare and non-fatal.
> */
>
> Thoughts?
LGTM. It looks well-articulated.
--
Regards,
Xuneng Zhou
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
