MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEze2WjSfPzReJXJ6r0UeheDv3f1Hya71m=-Kkc1cNS5Cx4qjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202603161927.lwqdfh5pelgu@alvherre.pgsql>
In-Reply-To: <202603161927.lwqdfh5pelgu@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 22:45:01 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAEze2WhgY_69zxRFLpDUOGXCtJjLEwy4zQZMaPs2Cyz0w+3aNw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
 Mihail Nikalayeu <mihailnikalayeu@gmail.com>,
	Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEze2WhgY_69zxRFLpDUOGXCtJjLEwy4zQZMaPs2Cyz0w%2B3aNw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Mar 2026 at 20:34, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2026-Mar-16, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > I agree it's not user-friendly, but that's the point of limiting
> > permissions. Users can't install c-functions without SUPERUSER,
> > because it can cause cluster instability and crashes. Users can't
> > create slots without REPLICATION, because they'll be able to
> > negatively impact the whole cluster's performance, and possibly,
> > stability, when taking up replication slots that otherwise would be
> > used for critical HA purposes.
>
> Well, as I said, these repack slots would be separate from the regular
> ones for replication and available only for repack, so they would not
> interfere with the count of slots used for replication, so the second
> point is moot, isn't it?

Sorry, I misread your response as "if at all, then at least like
this", instead of "let's do this alternative in this patch".

But, yes, a pool of slots used exclusively by REPACK CONCURRENTLY
would also solve the slot availability issue.

Kind regards,

Matthias van de Meent
Databricks (https://www.databricks.com)