MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CALDaNm3tiKhtegx5Cawi34UjbHmNGEDNAtScGM1RgWRtV-5_0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <202604060918.qw5ms7cbr2hz@alvherre.pgsql>
In-Reply-To: <202604060918.qw5ms7cbr2hz@alvherre.pgsql>
From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2026 15:31:27 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CALDaNm3ze8SrgTTGC4PUZ9Uo=vp8RTA8wJVyJoZajksyt=cyBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>,
 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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm3ze8SrgTTGC4PUZ9Uo%3Dvp8RTA8wJVyJoZajksyt%3DcyBA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 15:08, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2026-Apr-06, vignesh C wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2026 at 02:12, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> > Few comments:
>
> Thanks for reviewing this patch!
>
> > 1) Can we add a comment why we should error out here, as repack
> > concurrently requires this whereas repack does not require this check.
> > Even if it is required for decoding can't it be handled by replica
> > identity full:
> > +       /*
> > +        * If the identity index is not set due to replica identity being, PK
> > +        * might exist.
> > +        */
> > +       ident_idx = RelationGetReplicaIndex(rel);
> > +       if (!OidIsValid(ident_idx) && OidIsValid(rel->rd_pkindex))
> > +               ident_idx = rel->rd_pkindex;
> > +       if (!OidIsValid(ident_idx))
> > +               ereport(ERROR,
> > +
> > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > +                               errmsg("cannot process relation \"%s\"",
> > +                                          RelationGetRelationName(rel)),
> > +                               errhint("Relation \"%s\" has no
> > identity index.",
> > +                                               RelationGetRelationName(rel)));
>
> Ah, I was just rewriting that comment moments ago.  I think we could
> make it work with replica identity full in theory, but I'm guessing it
> would be useless.  You really need an index that lets you locate the
> affected tuples; otherwise the replay would take forever.  If the table
> is big, that would make the whole thing unworkable.  If the table isn't
> big, then you can probably just use straight repack without too much
> disruption.
>
>         /*
>          * Obtain the replica identity index -- either one that has been set
>          * explicitly, or the primary key.  If none of these cases apply, the
>          * table cannot be repacked concurrently.  It might be possible to have
>          * repack work with a FULL replica identity; however that requires more
>          * work and is not implemented yet.
>          */

Should this be mentioned in XXX comment:
It might be possible to have repack work with a FULL replica identity;
however that requires more work and is not implemented yet.

> > 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?

Yes, I was thinking of that.

> 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.

I will verify this scenario through debugger.

Regards,
Vignesh