> On Apr 26, 2026, at 22:50, Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2026-04-23 Th 2:47 AM, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for printing out that. Yes, they are similar. >> >> I agree with what Tom said in [2]: >> ``` >> This is not a bug. This is a superuser intentionally breaking >> the system by corrupting the catalogs. There are any number >> of ways to cause trouble with ill-advised manual updates to a >> catalog table. Try, eg, "DELETE FROM pg_proc" (... but not in >> a database you care about). >> ``` >> >> So, let me take back this patch. >> >> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected] >> In this case, it is a very corner case but not something superuser >> intentionally breaks. >> For example, a concurrent tablespace drop + database ddl to assign a >> different tablespace or default. >> We aren't acquiring Access Share lock on the DB in this function >> (intentional) so it is a good practice >> to do the null checks. Of course, it makes more sense to add this comment >> while doing a code review. >> I will let Tom and others chime in with their thoughts on fixing this. >> >> Attached an injection point test to show the race. Not intended to commit. >> >> > > I agree if there's a race condition we should protect against it. I don't > much like the idea of silently ignoring it, though. Raising an error seems > more like the right thing to do. > > cheers > > andrew > -- > Andrew Dunstan > EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com >
The v1 patch raises an error when the tablespace name is NULL. PFA v2: removed hint from the error message, because I now consider the hint might not be necessary. Best regards, -- Chao Li (Evan) HighGo Software Co., Ltd. https://www.highgo.com/
v2-0001-ddlutils-error-out-when-pg_get_database_ddl-sees-.patch
Description: Binary data
