From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
    Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
    Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
    Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-reply-to: 
 <CAJSLCQ36BynNAC2vYuWkJ-Y-rECRFoE4rB7NV-O+ENE3bKdp4A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADzfLwXx46j8KwQjjM1ZcqNBsx-k6GxHOzDJkm4SHjh+cv31Rw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202508091333.qvgvo7ikuezm@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CADzfLwW=b=U3e6aasi=XorN8hZSiCKZErKs9qhyK7m=w=wokAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <40729.1755799624@localhost>
 <CADzfLwXpyzGGVB+nbSAMBWDBhzTyn6F2hRrAqcyJd3c6gT2EOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <9536.1756127358@localhost>
 <CADzfLwWdw=5KhXE5Fr3khytp4mW2girFVJHHb4jSgEncc6237Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJSLCQ36BynNAC2vYuWkJ-Y-rECRFoE4rB7NV-O+ENE3bKdp4A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
   message dated "Mon, 25 Aug 2025 12:36:10 -0400."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:54:12 +0200
Message-ID: <23676.1756140852@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/23676.1756140852%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:15=E2=80=AFAM Mihail Nikalayeu
> <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) we have a whole initial table snapshot with all xmin copied from
> > the original table. All such xmin are committed.
> > 2) appling transaction sees ALL the self-alive (no xmax) tuple in it
> > because its xmin\xmax is committed and SnapshotSelf is happy with it
> > 3) each update/delete during the replay selects the last existing
> > tuple version, updates it xmax=3Doriginal xid and inserts a new one
> > keeping with xmin=3Dorignal xid
> > 4) --//--
> > 5) --//--
> >
>=20
> Advancing the tables min xid to at least repack XID is a pretty big
> feature, but the above scenario sounds like it would result in any
> non-modified pre-existing tuples ending up with their original xmin
> rather than repack XID, which seems like it could lead to weird
> side-effects. Maybe I am mis-thinking it though?

What we discuss here is how to keep visibility information of tuples (xmin,
xmax, ...) unchanged. Both CLUSTER and VACUUM FULL already do that. However
it's not trivial to ensure that REPACK with the CONCURRENTLY option does as
well.

--=20
Antonin Houska
Web: https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com