From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
    Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
    Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-reply-to: <8349.1773389498@localhost>
References: <202603121839.7ttist64mas5@alvherre.pgsql>
 <8349.1773389498@localhost>
Comments: In-reply-to Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
   message dated "Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:11:38 +0100."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22067.1773652380.1@localhost>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 10:13:00 +0100
Message-ID: <22068.1773652380@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/22068.1773652380%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> > - the name pgoutput_repack sounds wrong to me.  I would rather say
> >   rpck_output, repack_output, repack_plugin, ... or something.  I don't
> >   understand where the suffix "output" comes from in the name
> >   "pgoutput", but it sounds like arbitrary nonsense to me.
> 
> No strong preference here ...

One more problem related to the replication slot is that, due to the call of
CheckSlotPermissions() in setup_logical_decoding(), REPLICATION privilege is
required for REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) to run. That's not too user-friendly.

I think the reason to require the REPLICATION privilege is that, in generic
case, the output plugin can access data of any table in the database. However
REPACK uses one particular plugin and that plugin only decodes changes of one
particular table. Thus I think we don't really need to call
CheckSlotPermissions(). Do I seem to miss something?

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