On 2023-Aug-24, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 1:31 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > wrote:
> > Hmm, I think if worker->in_use is false, we shouldn't consult the rest > > of the struct at all, so I propose to add the attached 0001 as a minimal > > fix. > > I think that way we may need to add the check for in_use before > accessing each of the LogicalRepWorker struct fields or form some rule > about which fields (or places) are okay to access without checking > in_use field. As far as I realize, we have that rule already. It's only a few relatively new places that have broken it. I understand that the in_use concept comes from the one of the same name in ReplicationSlot, except that it is not at all documented in worker_internal.h. So I propose we do both: apply Zhijie's patch and my 0001 now; and somebody gets to document the locking design for LogicalRepWorker. > > In fact, I'd go further and propose that if we do take that stance, then > > we don't need clear out the contents of this struct at all, so let's > > not. That's 0002. > > Personally, I think we should consider this change (0002 and 0002) separately. I agree. I'd maybe even retract them. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/