MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4n4q3preb3lgyhpzstebhux7b2aojhsw7gik4ivaznyggiezrs@lrznutssxlh2>
 <CAA4eK1JDrk9xiALd4DHnGLOkGDbObM59SXSBJyj0_1bNYbr5ng@mail.gmail.com>
 <gebmxzovxumuflknpua4r52tmuiam2odies2qlchzcl36cvphc@iz6bkpk64amp>
 <CADzfLwUed3gmARGbHnsDbrXsqPRW0b0VUtZxi5iNJj0LTC2fJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JDd9HBOtR5pgAptcQHpUyXROMe5jqBbLGBRBqn+rCYCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <9539.1775724194@localhost>
 <fpr4nsmyy3mpfrm2mijspr44dgol2cjeke5tyznb4btsznxsgx@iifdbfe2wl63>
 <CADzfLwURKVNQ++Dpi7bjoGfj-8pchDQEVex3eWBx0NCYn6TbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <rr2hcc5c7cm3xpbi2bniduhvq7pko4fnmykdui2wns2pvowk4n@nod4copoefzs>
 <112208.1776173876@localhost>
 <aixbxaenmbvsaarnxpagkgajv25zpc4ogo6gwv7lr7bbrh3arp@xom2lyvdgccf>
 <25514.1776264611@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <25514.1776264611@localhost>
From: Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 17:54:12 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CADzfLwWz8CfqrBUmTRGT1Mme60KrFrEoDOBoyFZG47hJk3vAmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 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/CADzfLwWz8CfqrBUmTRGT1Mme60KrFrEoDOBoyFZG47hJk3vAmQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 4:50=E2=80=AFPM Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at> wro=
te:
> The approach proposed by Mihail [1] seems the least problematic to me, an=
d
> something like that occurred to me when I thought about the problem the f=
irst
> time. However, when we wake up the other processes in order to run the
> deadlock detection, they should do that immediately. I've got no good ide=
a
> about implementation at the moment, since latch can be set for unrelated
> reasons. (Besides that, I have some more questions about this patch, whic=
h I
> can post separately.)

It is already possible to "deadlock" ANOTHER backend while running the
deadlock check [0].
Supported in current infra, just not used at the moment (my POC used that a=
lso).

[0]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/backend/storage/l=
mgr/proc.c#L1870-L1873