agora inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
[PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack 880+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) /* Determine the lock mode to use. */ lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0); + if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0) + { + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose any functionality. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); + } + /* * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through. @@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock - * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in - * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is - * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --qr3jlalmmcpkiodg Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --r2slln3zpmilwu22 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack @ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation before verifying the transaction state. This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM ,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions before validating targets. Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error, and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands. Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> --- src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c @@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel) MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK; ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags; LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock); + + /* + * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. + * + * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait + * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would + * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no + * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction + * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users + * to understand and we don't lose anything. + */ + PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); } /* @@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid, * replica index OID. */ if (concurrent) - { - /* - * Make sure we're not in a transaction block. - * - * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait - * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would - * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no - * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction - * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users - * to understand and we don't lose anything. - */ - PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)"); - check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx); - } /* Check for user-requested abort. */ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); -- 2.47.3 --gp2pyozrd5pweboh Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch" ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] Fix DROP PROPERTY GRAPH "unsupported object class" error @ 2026-04-23 09:27 Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 880+ messages in thread From: Bertrand Drouvot @ 2026-04-23 09:27 UTC (permalink / raw) getObjectTypeDescription() and getObjectIdentityParts() are missing switch cases for PropgraphElementLabelRelationId and PropgraphLabelPropertyRelationId, causing them to hit the default case and error out with "unsupported object class". During DROP PROPERTY GRAPH, this manifests when an event trigger is active, because pg_event_trigger_ddl_commands() calls these functions. The same code paths are also reachable via pg_identify_object() and pg_identify_object_as_address(). This commit adds the missing cases. Test coverage is added in object_address.sql for these two catalog types via the zero-OID test that exercises pg_identify_object() and pg_identify_object_as_address(). A test in event_trigger.sql verifies that DROP PROPERTY GRAPH works correctly when an event trigger is active. Author: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/aej1DkLwhyZWmtxJ@bdtpg --- src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++ src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out | 17 ++++ src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out | 4 + src/test/regress/sql/event_trigger.sql | 13 +++ src/test/regress/sql/object_address.sql | 2 + 5 files changed, 129 insertions(+) 62.4% src/backend/catalog/ 25.6% src/test/regress/expected/ 11.8% src/test/regress/sql/ diff --git a/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c b/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c index c1862809577..e2d6d8f71f6 100644 --- a/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c +++ b/src/backend/catalog/objectaddress.c @@ -4901,10 +4901,18 @@ getObjectTypeDescription(const ObjectAddress *object, bool missing_ok) appendStringInfoString(&buffer, "policy"); break; + case PropgraphElementLabelRelationId: + appendStringInfoString(&buffer, "property graph element label"); + break; + case PropgraphElementRelationId: appendStringInfoString(&buffer, "property graph element"); break; + case PropgraphLabelPropertyRelationId: + appendStringInfoString(&buffer, "property graph label property"); + break; + case PropgraphLabelRelationId: appendStringInfoString(&buffer, "property graph label"); break; @@ -6161,6 +6169,49 @@ getObjectIdentityParts(const ObjectAddress *object, break; } + case PropgraphElementLabelRelationId: + { + Relation ellabelDesc; + ScanKeyData skey[1]; + SysScanDesc ellabelscan; + HeapTuple tup; + Form_pg_propgraph_element_label pgelform; + ObjectAddress oa; + + ellabelDesc = table_open(PropgraphElementLabelRelationId, AccessShareLock); + ScanKeyInit(&skey[0], + Anum_pg_propgraph_element_label_oid, + BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_OIDEQ, + ObjectIdGetDatum(object->objectId)); + + ellabelscan = systable_beginscan(ellabelDesc, + PropgraphElementLabelObjectIndexId, + true, NULL, 1, skey); + + tup = systable_getnext(ellabelscan); + if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup)) + { + if (!missing_ok) + elog(ERROR, "could not find tuple for element label %u", + object->objectId); + + systable_endscan(ellabelscan); + table_close(ellabelDesc, AccessShareLock); + break; + } + + pgelform = (Form_pg_propgraph_element_label) GETSTRUCT(tup); + + ObjectAddressSet(oa, PropgraphElementRelationId, pgelform->pgelelid); + + appendStringInfoString(&buffer, getObjectIdentityParts(&oa, objname, + objargs, false)); + + systable_endscan(ellabelscan); + table_close(ellabelDesc, AccessShareLock); + break; + } + case PropgraphElementRelationId: { HeapTuple tup; @@ -6184,6 +6235,48 @@ getObjectIdentityParts(const ObjectAddress *object, break; } + case PropgraphLabelPropertyRelationId: + { + Relation lblpropDesc; + ScanKeyData skey[1]; + SysScanDesc lblpropscan; + HeapTuple tup; + Form_pg_propgraph_label_property plpform; + ObjectAddress oa; + + lblpropDesc = table_open(PropgraphLabelPropertyRelationId, + AccessShareLock); + ScanKeyInit(&skey[0], + Anum_pg_propgraph_label_property_oid, + BTEqualStrategyNumber, F_OIDEQ, + ObjectIdGetDatum(object->objectId)); + + lblpropscan = systable_beginscan(lblpropDesc, PropgraphLabelPropertyObjectIndexId, + true, NULL, 1, skey); + + tup = systable_getnext(lblpropscan); + if (!HeapTupleIsValid(tup)) + { + if (!missing_ok) + elog(ERROR, "could not find tuple for label property %u", + object->objectId); + + systable_endscan(lblpropscan); + table_close(lblpropDesc, AccessShareLock); + break; + } + + plpform = (Form_pg_propgraph_label_property) GETSTRUCT(tup); + + ObjectAddressSet(oa, PropgraphElementLabelRelationId, plpform->plpellabelid); + appendStringInfoString(&buffer, getObjectIdentityParts(&oa, objname, + objargs, false)); + + systable_endscan(lblpropscan); + table_close(lblpropDesc, AccessShareLock); + break; + } + case PropgraphLabelRelationId: { HeapTuple tup; diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out index 065f586310f..ed8d5df397e 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out +++ b/src/test/regress/expected/event_trigger.out @@ -173,6 +173,23 @@ NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end CREATE USER MAPPING alter default privileges for role regress_evt_user revoke delete on tables from regress_evt_user; NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES +-- DROP PROPERTY GRAPH should work with event trigger in place +CREATE TABLE t1x (a int PRIMARY KEY, b text); +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_start CREATE TABLE +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end CREATE TABLE +CREATE TABLE t2x (i int PRIMARY KEY, j text); +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_start CREATE TABLE +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end CREATE TABLE +CREATE PROPERTY GRAPH gx + VERTEX TABLES ( + t1x KEY (a) LABEL l1 PROPERTIES (b AS p1), + t2x KEY (i) LABEL l2 PROPERTIES (j AS p1) +); +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end CREATE PROPERTY GRAPH +DROP PROPERTY GRAPH gx; +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end DROP PROPERTY GRAPH +DROP TABLE t1x, t2x; +NOTICE: test_event_trigger: ddl_command_end DROP TABLE -- alter owner to non-superuser should fail alter event trigger regress_event_trigger owner to regress_evt_user; ERROR: permission denied to change owner of event trigger "regress_event_trigger" diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out b/src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out index 97227d67a54..729c3537f25 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out +++ b/src/test/regress/expected/object_address.out @@ -593,7 +593,9 @@ WITH objects (classid, objid, objsubid) AS (VALUES ('pg_parameter_acl'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no parameter ACL ('pg_policy'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no policy ('pg_propgraph_element'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph element + ('pg_propgraph_element_label'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph element label ('pg_propgraph_label'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph label + ('pg_propgraph_label_property'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph label property ('pg_propgraph_property'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph property ('pg_publication'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no publication ('pg_publication_namespace'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no publication namespace @@ -653,6 +655,8 @@ ORDER BY objects.classid, objects.objid, objects.objsubid; ("(""parameter ACL"",,,)")|("(""parameter ACL"",,)")|NULL ("(""property graph element"",,,)")|("(""property graph element"",,)")|NULL ("(""property graph label"",,,)")|("(""property graph label"",,)")|NULL +("(""property graph element label"",,,)")|("(""property graph element label"",,)")|NULL ("(""property graph property"",,,)")|("(""property graph property"",,)")|NULL +("(""property graph label property"",,,)")|("(""property graph label property"",,)")|NULL -- restore normal output mode \a\t diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/event_trigger.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/event_trigger.sql index 32e9bb58c5e..271f443378b 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/sql/event_trigger.sql +++ b/src/test/regress/sql/event_trigger.sql @@ -143,6 +143,19 @@ create user mapping for regress_evt_user server useless_server; alter default privileges for role regress_evt_user revoke delete on tables from regress_evt_user; +-- DROP PROPERTY GRAPH should work with event trigger in place +CREATE TABLE t1x (a int PRIMARY KEY, b text); +CREATE TABLE t2x (i int PRIMARY KEY, j text); + +CREATE PROPERTY GRAPH gx + VERTEX TABLES ( + t1x KEY (a) LABEL l1 PROPERTIES (b AS p1), + t2x KEY (i) LABEL l2 PROPERTIES (j AS p1) +); + +DROP PROPERTY GRAPH gx; +DROP TABLE t1x, t2x; + -- alter owner to non-superuser should fail alter event trigger regress_event_trigger owner to regress_evt_user; diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/object_address.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/object_address.sql index 1bbe9457c1c..620dacf1045 100644 --- a/src/test/regress/sql/object_address.sql +++ b/src/test/regress/sql/object_address.sql @@ -282,7 +282,9 @@ WITH objects (classid, objid, objsubid) AS (VALUES ('pg_parameter_acl'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no parameter ACL ('pg_policy'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no policy ('pg_propgraph_element'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph element + ('pg_propgraph_element_label'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph element label ('pg_propgraph_label'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph label + ('pg_propgraph_label_property'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph label property ('pg_propgraph_property'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no property graph property ('pg_publication'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no publication ('pg_publication_namespace'::regclass, 0, 0), -- no publication namespace -- 2.34.1 --gtUR827Uq8d5gVsQ-- ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 880+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-23 09:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 880+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-03 15:23 [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]> 2026-04-23 09:27 [PATCH v2] Fix DROP PROPERTY GRAPH "unsupported object class" error Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox