Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 17:31:33 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <srinath2133@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>
Subject: Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently]
Message-ID: <ahW7vUWvDDJdE4zU@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <TY4PR01MB17718B44164522D0798F8E898940A2@TY4PR01MB17718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ahW7vUWvDDJdE4zU%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-May-25, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:

> After listening to the REPACK talk at pgconf.dev this year, I understand that
> WAL accumulation during REPACK CONCURRENTLY is not intended behavior. I think we
> can consider fixing this in the current release. Attached is the rebased
> patch, with comments adjusted based on Chao Li's comments.

You're right, this is a thinko.  I'll look at your patch hoping to get
it pushed shortly.  I wonder if we should add a TAP test to verify that
WAL files are actually removed?  Sounds a bit excessive TBH, but maybe
it isn't really.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I think my standards have lowered enough that now I think 'good design'
is when the page doesn't irritate the living f*ck out of me." (JWZ)