On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 10:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Won't that add a new restriction that one can't drop postgres database
> after this?
That's correct, so maybe this is not acceptable IMHO.
> BTW, isn't it better to acquire the share_lock on subscription during
> worker initialization (InitializeLogRepWorker()) where we already
> checking whether the subscription is dropped by that time? I think if
> we don't acquire the lock on subscription during launcher or during
> InitializeLogRepWorker(), there is a risk that DropSubscription would
> have reached the place where it would have tried to stop the workers
> and launcher will launch the worker after that point. Then there is a
> possibility of dangling worker because the GetSubscription() can still
> return valid value as the transaction in which we are dropping a
> subscription could still be in-progress.
Here is my thought on these 2 approaches, so if we lock in launcher
and check there we avoid launching the worker altogether but for that
we will have to revalidate the subscription using sequence scan on
pg_subcription as we can not open additional indexes as we are not
connected to any database OTOH if we acquire lock in
InitializeLogRepWorker() we don't need to do any additional scan but
we will have to launch the worker and after that if subscription
recheck shows its dropped we will exit the worker.
I think either way it's fine because this is not a very common
performance path, I prefer what you proposed as we will have to add
less code in this case, because we are already checking the
subscription and just need to acquire the shared object lock in
InitializeLogRepWorker(), lets see what other thinks, meanwhile I will
modify the code with this approach as well.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google
