public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
To: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <[email protected]>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:46:13 +0200
Message-ID: <62070.1776692773@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2026-Apr-20, Antonin Houska wrote:
> 
> > Antonin Houska <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Sorry, I attached wrong patch. This is what I meant.
> 
> Yeah, I had also written the same patch a couple of days ago.
> 
> BTW I ran into a small problem after adding some tests in cluster.sql
> that would exercise this -- that test would die more or less randomly
> but frequently in CI (which it never did in my laptop) because of the
> size of the snapshot,
> 
>  ALTER TABLE ptnowner1 REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX ptnowner1_i_key;
>  REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) ptnowner1;
> +ERROR:  initial slot snapshot too large
> +CONTEXT:  REPACK decoding worker
>  RESET SESSION AUTHORIZATION;
> 
> I think the solution for this is to move cluster to a separate parallel
> test.  The one where it is now is a bit too crowded.  Maybe the one for
> compression is okay?  I'll test and push if I see it passing CI.

That shouldn't break anything, but I have no idea why this problem was not
triggered (as far as I remember) by the stress tests we ran during
development.

I thought that it might be due to less frequent calls of
SnapBuildPurgeOlderTxn(), which might in turn be due to less frequent
checkpoints (because xl_running_xacts is typically written during checkpoint),
and that checkpoints may be deliberately less frequent to make regression
tests run faster. However I don't immediately see related configuration in the
regression test setup.

> Another obvious thing after adding tests is that the LOGIN privilege is
> required, which is also quite bogus IMO.  0002 here should solve that.

ok

> >From b3d4158356f4914d2b0cba86eef6994c0ee50ab9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?=C3=81lvaro=20Herrera?= <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:38:48 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] REPACK: do not require the user to have REPLICATION

> Because there are now successful concurrent repack runs in the
> regression tests, we're forced to run test_plan_advice under
> wal_level=replica.

Is this an attempt to disable REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)? That would require
wal_level=minimal (due to commit 67c20979ce). In which way does REPACK seem to
break test_plan_advice?

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

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
  In-Reply-To: <62070.1776692773@localhost>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox