On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Stale name read in local_sync_slot_required(): The reused cell > holds a different name. local_sync_slot_required() might return false > (drop needed). But then the in_use && synced spinlock check sees > synced = false and skips the actual drop. The wrong decision is > caught.
Yes, we could skip the actual drop. But then wouldn't we still emit the log message "dropped replication slot ..." even though no slot was actually dropped? > 2. Wrong database OID read at line 551: The reused cell holds OID_B > from the new slot. We lock OID_B, then at lines 563–565 we see synced > = false, skip the drop, and unlock OID_B at line 579. Since no drop > occurred, the cell is still the same non-synced slot, so the lock and > unlock see the same OID_B. Symmetric — no lock leak. What happens if the slot for OID_B is dropped after we lock OID_B, and then a new slot for OID_C reuses the same array entry? In that case, wouldn't the later unlock read OID_C from local_slot->data.database even though the lock was originally taken on OID_B? Regards, -- Fujii Masao
