Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state
От | vignesh C |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CALDaNm1E6o-GUVkeOHN2MX6H+OL4CqrOihAeG_JghaqfLOcfDQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [16+] subscription can end up in inconsistent state (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 15:02, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 01:45, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Attached patch has the changes for the same. > > > > Almost everything about this patch seems incorrect to me. > > > > It seems to rip out all of the must_use_password = passwordrequired && > > !superuser logic, which is not at all what was being discussed here, > > and which I think is not desirable. > > I thought of moving the passwordrequired && !superuser logic inside > libpq connect but it is not simplifying the code. Reverted those > changes and kept only the changes to check if the password is present > in the connection string in case of must_use_password. > > > And it does stuff like this: > > > > @@ -275,10 +288,18 @@ libpqrcv_check_conninfo(const char *conninfo, > > bool must_use_password) > > } > > > > if (!uses_password) > > + { > > + if (conn) > > + { > > + libpqsrv_disconnect(conn->streamConn); > > + pfree(conn); > > + } > > + > > ereport(ERROR, > > (errcode(ERRCODE_S_R_E_PROHIBITED_SQL_STATEMENT_ATTEMPTED), > > errmsg("password is required"), > > errdetail("Non-superusers must provide a password in the connection > > string."))); > > + } > > } > > > > PQconninfoFree(opts); > > > > There are zero comments explaining what this is supposed to > > accomplish, but I don't think it's any of the things discussed on this > > thread. > > We can have this check before the connection, so this can be removed. > > > + CacheRegisterSyscacheCallback(AUTHOID, > > + subscription_change_cb, > > + (Datum) 0); > > > > I think if we want to do this it should be a separate patch from > > adding the additional error checks. And I think it should be > > accompanied by a comment update. > > I will post these changes in a separate email. Posted this changes to hackers at [1] [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm2Dxmhq08nr4P6G%2B24QvdBo_GAVyZ_Q1TcGYK%2B8NHs9xw%40mail.gmail.com Regards, Vignesh
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: