MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CADzfLwWFr9h_+cbSQvPpdxgLbVL5wwxFRx21ezNvLYgJM=FVCQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <202604062213.cgo352cdsgsm@alvherre.pgsql>
 <4n4q3preb3lgyhpzstebhux7b2aojhsw7gik4ivaznyggiezrs@lrznutssxlh2>
 <CAA4eK1JDrk9xiALd4DHnGLOkGDbObM59SXSBJyj0_1bNYbr5ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <gebmxzovxumuflknpua4r52tmuiam2odies2qlchzcl36cvphc@iz6bkpk64amp>
 <CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2026 10:24:05 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1JDd9HBOtR5pgAptcQHpUyXROMe5jqBbLGBRBqn+rCYCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
	Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>,
	Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JDd9HBOtR5pgAptcQHpUyXROMe5jqBbLGBRBqn%2BrCYCg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 5:08=E2=80=AFAM Mihail Nikalayeu
<mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 7:22=E2=80=AFPM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>=
 wrote:
> > I don't think this is a viable path.  You need to prevent any further l=
ock
> > acquisitions on the relation to be able to swap it, not just conflictin=
g DDL.
>
> AFAIU, Amit's main idea is that we currently upgrade the lock instead
> of **releasing and re-acquiring** it because we fear DDL between those
> actions.
> DML actions are ok for us; REPACK will wait for them while getting
> AEL. Later changes will be applied by REPACK backend while holding
> AEL.
>

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind.

> One more thing we may prevent from sneaking into that hole is a
> VACUUM. It will not break anything, but will be huge waste of time and
> resources.
>

We can prevent other commands (if required) by checking the
rel_in_use_by_repack flag but I thought for the initial version it is
better to do what is minimally required.

> > And you need to wait for all pre-existing locks to have been released. =
 That
> > doesn't really get easier by what you propose.
>
>  Do you mean locks from other sessions accessing the table? Is it done
> automatically while waiting for AEL?
>

Right and this is already the case with the code where locks
not-conflicting with ShareUpdateExclusiveLock could be present before
we try to upgrade the lock. The point was we will not let DDL execute
on the table after the new flag (rel_in_use_by_repack) is set and we
released the ShareUpdateExclusiveLock.

> > I don't think CheckTableNotInUse() would work anyway - don't we already=
 hold
> > locks by the point we call it?
>
> Yes, the DDL session already holds locks by the time
> CheckTableNotInUse is called - but is that really the problem? They
> will be released on error.
>

Yes, that is the key to solve this problem. Let me take an example to
explain this a bit more. Right now, the problem can happen in the
following kind of sequence.

Session-1:
REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) foo;

-- now say after the above command has acquired
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock and is doing the work of copying the table,
Session-2 did following actions.

Session-2:
Select * from foo; -- this is allowed
ALTER TABLE foo ADD COLUMN c2; -- this will blocked as Session-1
already has acquired ShareUpdateExclusiveLock

Session-1:
-- continues and tries to upgrade the lock to AEL. This leads to
deadlock ERROR in the current session doing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY).

Now, with the solution I proposed, because we will release
ShareUpdateExclusiveLock after setting a flag like
rel_in_use_by_repack, the ALTER TABLE in session-2 will succeed but
will error_out by CheckTableNotInUse(or a similar function that checks
rel_in_use_by_repack). Both with and without this solution, acquiring
AEL by REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) needs to wait concurrent locks like the
one for SELECT in above example that could have been acquired during
the time REPACKing had ShareUpdateExclusiveLock.

> > And even if that were not the case, there are
> > several paths to locking relations that don't ever go anywhere near
> > CheckTableNotInUse().
>
> But those aren't DDL, so they shouldn't be the problem (CREATE TRIGGER
> might be - it seems to ignore CheckTableNotInUse, but perhaps it's
> fine).
>
> So, in my undeerstanding Amit's idea has two parts: "set flag and
> release/re-acquire" + "use CheckTableNotInUse (or some place like
> that) to check the flag and fail for DDL commands."
>

True, this is the core of the idea.

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.