Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2026 23:31:48 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Message-ID: <202602012202.qo2k6ip7hoer@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADzfLwUukiGOPoUkDgf6oEB-Y0TnNy6UFUN4obnU-AN5W1N=sw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202602012202.qo2k6ip7hoer%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Feb-01, Mihail Nikalayeu wrote:

> Also, I am still not sure if MVCC-safe implementation is worth
> its complexity compared with "relcheckxmin"approach [0].

I'm not sure it's acceptable to cause other sessions to raise errors if
they query the table being repacked (or a table repacked recently).
That sounds extremely unpleasant.  Imagine a long-running transactions
that runs enormous queries for many hours or even days, being killed
near the end because some DBA decided to run REPACK on a table.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/