From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Osama Abdul Qader <osamaabdulqader.cs@gmail.com>
cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>,
    Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
    pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: REPACK (ANALYZE) within transaction block segfaults
In-reply-to: 
 <CAC+8b5iYeoG2+8u3Wdz7N4qJFK3PXr5t1wjDu2UbmP2As=VM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <apfbHj9TkfvlOeJ3@alvherre.pgsql> <15397.1788338846@localhost>
 <CAC+8b5ha_W8S_qaK1DUj_Z=+gQQX7PfSyfypLafgtXF=zhRrQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5477.1788410526@localhost>
 <CAC+8b5gsq+W_Re-h-wYC4c2F-HCZf9FZ-rs00COFpddKjr7Q7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC+8b5hZ0d9UNNGSh8LwCFytmuTx0cQszUZo2aJ9kSYRaOSTTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHGQGwGKdV8Hw-f430qacdtEGkYnc-DbQd0W1opx+wCO9fcdxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC+8b5gCW3gU7KS1Jj=csgYkMhQ75DeKAPB15e9BT+4ZsbGLJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC+8b5iYeoG2+8u3Wdz7N4qJFK3PXr5t1wjDu2UbmP2As=VM1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Osama Abdul Qader <osamaabdulqader.cs@gmail.com>
   message dated "Thu, 03 Sep 2026 23:05:09 +0530."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <18947.1788526497.1@localhost>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2026 14:54:57 +0200
Message-ID: <18948.1788526497@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/18948.1788526497%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

Osama Abdul Qader <osamaabdulqader.cs@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've updated the patch to address your comments:
> =

> * Documented that 'REPACK (ANALYZE)' cannot be used inside a transaction=
 block, or from a function, procedure or 'DO' block.
> * Updated the comment in repack.c to clarify that this restriction is in=
tentional for now, consistently with VACUUM (FULL, ANALYZE).

In [1] I added a comment explaining why it's a problem to run REPACK (ANAL=
YZE)
from function. I thought it's important so that, when we conclude (in the
future) that running in block is fine, we still keep checking for executio=
n
from a function. (PreventInTransactionBlock() checks both at the moment.)

In [2] I was advised to make the comment more precise, but as you appear t=
o
have taken the patch over, I expected that you'll do that. However, you si=
mply
removed that part of the comment. Can you please explain why?


BTW, "top posting" is not the preferred style in this mailing list [3].

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/49398.1787944525%40localhost
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEezdMUixhJ-N0YO0OFUmh0uPa=
XRDkds5FS-5dmdwz4Bg%40mail.gmail.com
[3] https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists

-- =

Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com