mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-10-19 15:49:24 +03:00
Fix lookup code for REINDEX INDEX.
This commit adjusts RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex() to handle an extremely unlikely race condition involving concurrent OID reuse. In short, if REINDEX INDEX is executed at the same time that the index is re-created with the same name and OID but a different parent table OID, we might lock the wrong parent table. To fix, simply detect when this happens and emit an ERROR. Unfortunately, we can't gracefully handle this situation because we will have already locked the index, and we must lock the parent table before the index to avoid deadlocks. While at it, I've replaced all but one early return in this callback function with ERRORs that should be unreachable. While I haven't verified the presence of a live bug, the checks in question appear to be unnecessary, and the early returns seem prone to breaking the parent table locking code in subtle ways. If nothing else, this simplifies the code a bit. This is a bug fix and could be back-patched, but given the presumed rarity of the race condition and the lack of reports, I'm not going to bother. Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> Reviewed-by: Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/Z8zwVmGzXyDdkAXj%40nathan
This commit is contained in:
@@ -2976,6 +2976,7 @@ RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex(const RangeVar *relation,
|
||||
struct ReindexIndexCallbackState *state = arg;
|
||||
LOCKMODE table_lockmode;
|
||||
Oid table_oid;
|
||||
AclResult aclresult;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* Lock level here should match table lock in reindex_index() for
|
||||
@@ -3000,45 +3001,44 @@ RangeVarCallbackForReindexIndex(const RangeVar *relation,
|
||||
if (!OidIsValid(relId))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If the relation does exist, check whether it's an index. But note that
|
||||
* the relation might have been dropped between the time we did the name
|
||||
* lookup and now. In that case, there's nothing to do.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
/* If the relation does exist, check whether it's an index. */
|
||||
relkind = get_rel_relkind(relId);
|
||||
if (!relkind)
|
||||
return;
|
||||
if (relkind != RELKIND_INDEX &&
|
||||
relkind != RELKIND_PARTITIONED_INDEX)
|
||||
ereport(ERROR,
|
||||
(errcode(ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE),
|
||||
errmsg("\"%s\" is not an index", relation->relname)));
|
||||
|
||||
/* Check permissions */
|
||||
table_oid = IndexGetRelation(relId, true);
|
||||
if (OidIsValid(table_oid))
|
||||
{
|
||||
AclResult aclresult;
|
||||
/* Look up the index's table. */
|
||||
table_oid = IndexGetRelation(relId, false);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* In the unlikely event that, upon retry, we get the same index OID with
|
||||
* a different table OID, fail. RangeVarGetRelidExtended() will have
|
||||
* already locked the index in this case, and it won't retry again, so we
|
||||
* can't lock the newly discovered table OID without risking deadlock.
|
||||
* Also, while this corner case is indeed possible, it is extremely
|
||||
* unlikely to happen in practice, so it's probably not worth any more
|
||||
* effort than this.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (relId == oldRelId && table_oid != state->locked_table_oid)
|
||||
ereport(ERROR,
|
||||
(errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
|
||||
errmsg("index \"%s\" was concurrently dropped",
|
||||
relation->relname)));
|
||||
|
||||
/* Check permissions. */
|
||||
aclresult = pg_class_aclcheck(table_oid, GetUserId(), ACL_MAINTAIN);
|
||||
if (aclresult != ACLCHECK_OK)
|
||||
aclcheck_error(aclresult, OBJECT_INDEX, relation->relname);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Lock heap before index to avoid deadlock. */
|
||||
if (relId != oldRelId)
|
||||
{
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If the OID isn't valid, it means the index was concurrently
|
||||
* dropped, which is not a problem for us; just return normally.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (OidIsValid(table_oid))
|
||||
{
|
||||
LockRelationOid(table_oid, table_lockmode);
|
||||
state->locked_table_oid = table_oid;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* ReindexTable
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user