From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
    Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
    Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>,
    Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
    pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-reply-to: <aeJHPNmL4vVy3oPw@pryzbyj2023>
References: <9539.1775724194@localhost>
 <fpr4nsmyy3mpfrm2mijspr44dgol2cjeke5tyznb4btsznxsgx@iifdbfe2wl63>
 <CADzfLwURKVNQ++Dpi7bjoGfj-8pchDQEVex3eWBx0NCYn6TbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rr2hcc5c7cm3xpbi2bniduhvq7pko4fnmykdui2wns2pvowk4n@nod4copoefzs>
 <112208.1776173876@localhost>
 <aixbxaenmbvsaarnxpagkgajv25zpc4ogo6gwv7lr7bbrh3arp@xom2lyvdgccf>
 <25514.1776264611@localhost>
 <ikqtl3utsa3er2mfz2oyjv5ofjmlxfhtkolwh5fyfotsmykhqx@rnm3d7e46tjb>
 <38385.1776277704@localhost>
 <CADzfLwUOnargQe+rpTC5tFUOj+yNj01qJM42PAgi2CiMpZn3tw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeJHPNmL4vVy3oPw@pryzbyj2023>
Comments: In-reply-to Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
   message dated "Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:44:12 -0500."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:44:45 +0200
Message-ID: <22189.1776671085@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/22189.1776671085%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:

> I had trouble testing this at first:
> 
> postgres=# REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) users;
> ERROR:  42501: permission denied to use replication slots
> DETAIL:  Only roles with the REPLICATION attribute may use replication slots.
> CONTEXT:  REPACK decoding worker
> LOCATION:  CheckSlotPermissions, slot.c:1697
> 
> That's surprising, since it was run as a superuser.
> 
> It turns out that repack runs as the owner of the table, and the table
> *owner* needs to have REPLICATION -- regardless of who runs the command.
> 
> I imagine people have been testing with one user, that both owns the
> table and invokes REPACK.  Maybe this just needs to be clarified in the
> documentation/error message?

It was discussed earlier [1] and the concerns about possibly excessive
resource consumptions were addressed by [2]. So I think it the fix was just
forgotten. Attached here.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202603161220.7nv6whwu33hi@alvherre.pgsql
[2] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=e76d8c749c3152657711ed733f0aea61c0e36a91

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


--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/x-diff
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename=0001-Lock-upgrade-without-deadlocks.patch