MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAA4eK1K=214d_Ya8jqMJQHamKxQXu8pxHux_cT0Ew0-AeE4K5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <202604011050.7ya3k4ccd3hg@alvherre.pgsql>
In-Reply-To: <202604011050.7ya3k4ccd3hg@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2026 17:51:40 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAA4eK1LOsfpPqTV1+cN0qgXc3iKtDHS21Z0krDiSDu4hVqVG8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@gmail.com>,
 Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
	Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
 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/CAA4eK1LOsfpPqTV1%2BcN0qgXc3iKtDHS21Z0krDiSDu4hVqVG8g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 5:08=E2=80=AFPM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.=
org> wrote:
>
> On 2026-Apr-01, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > What about if the blocking process is an autovacumm that is working to
> > prevent XID wraparound? I think we already avoid killing it in such
> > cases.
>
> If we just let REPACK finish, it will also renew the table's XID, so
> autovacuum is not needed in that case.  I mean, there's no reason to let
> autovacuum process the contents of a table that is going to be replaced
> completely.
>
> One potentially problematic case would be that an emergency autovacuum
> has been running for a long time and about to finish, and REPACK is
> started.  But in that case, autovacuum already has ShareUpdateExclusive,
> so REPACK wouldn't be able to start at all, which means it won't kill
> autovacuum.  And in the case where autovacuum is doing emergency
> vacuuming, then it won't commit suicide, so it will be able to complete
> before repack starts.
>
> > BTW, one can say that cancelling a long-running report query also
> > wastes a lot of effort of the user generating such a report. Why can't
> > REPACK wait for such a select to finish instead of cancelling it?
>
> I don't understand exactly which scenario you're concerned about.  Is
> there a long-running query which, after spending a lot of time running a
> report, tries to upgrade its lock level on the table?  Keep in mind that
> this check only runs when the affected session runs the deadlock
> checker, which means it's been waiting to acquire a lock for
> deadlock_timeout seconds.  It's not repack that kills the query.
>
> [ ... reflects ...]  Oh, actually what Srinath proposed does exactly
> that -- kill other queries.  Hmm, yeah, I'm less sure about that
> particular bit.
>

Yes, I was talking about Srinath's proposed solution. Do we need to do
anything about it?

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.