From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>,
    Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
    Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
    Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
    Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
    Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
In-reply-to: <202604051143.f5x6elmc7iut@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202604051143.f5x6elmc7iut@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
   message dated "Sun, 05 Apr 2026 13:50:12 +0200."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24164.1775406641.1@localhost>
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 18:30:41 +0200
Message-ID: <24165.1775406641@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/24165.1775406641%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

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

> On 2026-Apr-05, Antonin Houska wrote:
> 
> > ok, maybe just skip the whole cleanup in that special case.
> 
> Hmm, should we make this test only in the db_specific case?  Doing it
> unconditionally makes me a bit nervous (maybe because I don't fully
> understand historic snapshot building).

I thought about adding Assert(db_specific) in front of the new return
statement. So what you suggest makes sense to me.

As far as I understand, the xl_running_xacts record is not directly involved
in the snapshot build. Rather, the list of XIDs for snapshots is created and
updated by processing COMMIT and ABORT records.

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