On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 06:03:49PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Sorry to turn up late here, but I strongly disagree with the notion
> that this is a bug in the DSM or DSA code. It seems to me that it is
> the caller's responsibility to provide a valid resource owner, not the
> job of the called code to ignore the resource owner when it's
> unusable. I suspect that there are many other parts of the system that
> rely on the ResourceOwner machinery which likewise assume that the
> ResourceOwner that they are passed is valid.
Yeah, dshash would be one, I think. It feels to me that if you want
to enforce this kind of policy to be checked, this is something that
should be done in the shape of one or more assertion based the state
of the resource owner expected in these low-level paths rather than
tweaking the DSA and DSM code to do what you are expecting here, and
only enforce such new policies on HEAD to avoid disruption with
existing systems.
I'm actually rather scared of the patch, isn't there a risk of
breaking existing patterns that worked out of the box by forcing the
resowner to not be set? My spidey sense tingles when I see such
patterns, because this is enforcing assumptions directly hidden to the
callers.
--
Michael
