public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Chao Li <[email protected]>
To: Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
Cc: Mihail Nikalayeu <[email protected]>
Cc: Matthias van de Meent <[email protected]>
Cc: Pg Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Treat <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:24:25 +0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <TYRPR01MB14195633567DA00ABD42570B794592@TYRPR01MB14195.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAA4eK1Jwguq90CC8nxOqan+raCS8WisB=Bmb1AmK8rcvtj8GPg@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<TYRPR01MB14195633567DA00ABD42570B794592@TYRPR01MB14195.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>



> On Apr 10, 2026, at 18:53, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> When testing REPACK concurrently, I noticed that all WALs are retained from
> the moment REPACK begins copying data to the new table until the command
> finishes replaying concurrent changes on the new table and stops the repack
> decoding worker.
> 
> I understand the reason: the REPACK command itself starts a long-running
> transaction, and logical decoding does not advance restart_lsn beyond the
> oldest running transaction's start position. As a result, slot.restart_lsn
> remains unchanged, preventing the checkpointer from recycling WALs.
> 
> However, since REPACK can run for a long time (hours or even days), I'd like
> to confirm whether this is expected behavior or if we plan to improve it
> in the future ? And additionally, IIUC, REPACK without using concurrent option
> does not have this issue.
> 
> Given that we do not restart a REPACK, I think the repack decoding worker
> should be able to advance restart_lsn each time after writing changes
> (similar to how a physical slot behaves). To illustrate this, I've written
> a patch (attached) that implements this approach, and it works fine for me.
> 
> BTW, catalog_xmin also won't advance, but that seems not a big issue as
> the REPACK transaction itself also holds a snapshot that retains catalog tuples,
> so advancing catalog_xmin wouldn't change the situation anyway.
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Hou zj
> <v1-0001-Allow-old-WALs-to-be-removed-during-REPACK-CONCUR.patch>

I found the same problem with LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation and posted a fix in a separate thread [1]. So I would withdraw my patch.

Looking at this patch, the change is exactly the same as what I did in [1], but I think the code comment should be updated as well. For the comment change, please see my patch in [1].

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/D8D9F770-DAA2-482C-A7E0-F87E5104C13E%40gmail.com

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.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], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* 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