On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 7:39 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 6:20 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 5:59 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > At present, we use MVCC snapshots to identify dependent objects. This implies that if a new dependent object is
insertedwithin a transaction that is still ongoing, our search for dependent objects won't include this recently added
one.Consequently, if someone attempts to drop the referenced object, it will be dropped, and when the ongoing
transactioncompletes, we will end up having an entry for a referenced object that has already been dropped. This
situationcan lead to an inconsistent state. Below is an example illustrating this scenario:
>>
>> I don't think it's correct to allow the index to be dropped while a
>> transaction is creating it. Instead, the right solution should be for
>> the create index operation to protect the object it is using from
>> being dropped. Specifically, the create index operation should acquire
>> a shared lock on the Access Method (AM) to ensure it doesn't get
>> dropped concurrently while the transaction is still in progress.
>
>
> If I'm following you correctly, that's exactly what the patch is trying to do; while the index creation is in
progress,if someone tries to drop the object referenced by the index under creation, the referenced object being
droppedis able to know about the dependent object (in this case the index being created) using dirty snapshot and
hence,it is unable to acquire the lock on the dependent object, and as a result of that, it is unable to drop it.
You are aiming for the same outcome, but not in the conventional way.
In my opinion, the correct approach is not to find objects being
created using a dirty snapshot. Instead, when creating an object, you
should acquire a proper lock on any dependent objects to prevent them
from being dropped during the creation process. For instance, when
creating an index that depends on the btree_gist access method, the
create index operation should protect btree_gist from being dropped by
acquiring the appropriate lock. It is not the responsibility of the
drop extension to identify in-progress index creations.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com