From: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
    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: <202604060918.qw5ms7cbr2hz@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202604060918.qw5ms7cbr2hz@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
   message dated "Mon, 06 Apr 2026 11:38:20 +0200."
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <83935.1775474637.1@localhost>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:23:57 +0200
Message-ID: <83936.1775474637@localhost>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/83936.1775474637%40localhost>
Precedence: bulk

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

> On 2026-Apr-06, vignesh C wrote:

> > 2) Do you think it will be good to add a test to simulate a case where
> > one of the swap_replation_files is successful and a failure after
> > that. We can verify that the oid should still point to old oids:
> 
> Hmm, it's not clear to me in which cases this can happen.  Are you
> thinking that the first swap_replation_files call dies because of
> out-of-memory?
> 
> Note that the really weird cases, like pg_class or mapped relations, are
> directly rejected.  So we don't get into the branch with
> !RelFileNumberIsValid, and so on.
> 
> I mean -- I'm not opposed to adding a test case for it.  But I suspect
> it's going to be somewhat annoying to write.

After all, I think we'd end up testing whether transaction abort works
correctly.

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