Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 07:15:16 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
	Imran Zaheer <imran.zhir@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>
Subject: Re: BUG #19519: REPACK can fail due to missing chunk for toast value
Message-ID: <ak16dMkUP1pS0rCn@paquier.xyz>
References: <19519-fe02d8ff679d834d@postgresql.org>
 <CAFC+b6rLNvDzzYxrfLdq7CWbbouHcuOxi-mjEOW1r3qy2uAPMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+UBfan1QukfNDPvb2YpPG-ME4vUduBfbbe5uWptXDryZbtwVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <aktM919ANQGYZcsj@paquier.xyz>
 <CAEze2WhCRX86ZY2QN7vuGc3wsAyOJbArFSc0i5KtMVnsguA7Kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <akw336Xpi9Ck9-Oz@paquier.xyz>
 <CAEze2WgBjhf6KTKuJ-UqHHGj9Z66f62grmJgZ1EazvMH9HU+XA@mail.gmail.com>
 <akxZiYmGhvNfPVvh@paquier.xyz>
 <akyM9G67ZIhPXjmQ@paquier.xyz>
 <CAFC+b6rOdx6rMi_numCrK8cM4z_HWQKrAcBY0dfrRcRWTRpsBQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Cj15TU4wi1BaCuQM"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFC+b6rOdx6rMi_numCrK8cM4z_HWQKrAcBY0dfrRcRWTRpsBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ak16dMkUP1pS0rCn%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--Cj15TU4wi1BaCuQM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 10:40:12PM +0530, Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla wrote:
> I quickly reviewed the core logic of treating the missing
> chunks as dead and LGTM will further look into this and test.

Thanks for that.  This is tricky and invasive enough that this
warrants more eyes.

One thing that I still don't like much in the patch as written is my
use of a missing_ok argument, which feels super confusing as it
applies only to the underlying external TOAST, if the relation has
any.  I'd be tempted to rewrite this portion of the patch with a
uint32 flags.  Even if we assign one value for now (say MISSING_TOAST,
MISSING_TOAST_OK or whatever), it would allow more flexibility on ABI
grounds if we want more like states in the future across this portion
of the stack.  Again, I strongly doubt that we will be able to
backpatch any of that.
--
Michael

--Cj15TU4wi1BaCuQM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=i0ld
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Cj15TU4wi1BaCuQM--