agora inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedRe: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2890+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
@ 2018-01-11 23:01 Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2018-01-11 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Do you have any suggestion as to how we should transmit the blacklist to
>>> parallel workers?
>>
>> How about storing them in the a dshash table instead of dynahash?
>> Similar to how we're now dealing with the shared typmod registry stuff?
>> It should be fairly simple to now simply add a new struct Session member
>> shared_enum_whatevs_table.
>
> Yeah, that approach seems worth exploring.
Andrew Dunstan asked me off-list which README covers that stuff. Erm,
there isn't one, so I was going to write some explanation here to see
if that could help... but after looking at this I'm not sure I agree
it's the right approach anyway.
The reason commit cc5f8136 introduced Session and
SharedRecordTypmodRegistry was that we have some state that is
session-scoped and writable by any worker. In contrast:
1. The enum OID blacklist has transaction scope. If you wanted to
put it into the Session you'd have to explicitly zap it at end of
transaction. Incidentally dshash has no fast reset, though that could
be added, but I'd probably want fast per-transaction cleanup to skip
retail destruction entirely and simply give back all the memory, just
like MemoryContext does. There are other transaction-scoped things
we'll eventually want to share, like ComboCIDs, so I think we'll need
something like that, but no one has been brave enough to propose the
machinery yet.
2. The enum OID blacklist is read-only for workers. They don't
create new blacklisted enums and don't see that they ever will.
So I agree with Tom's suggestion:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
> Perhaps serialize the contents into an array in DSM, then rebuild a hash
> table from that in the worker. Robert might have a better idea though.
I'd happily volunteer to write or review a patch to do that. Is there
a rebase of the stuff that got reverted, to build on?
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-12 03:19 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 04:01 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2018-01-12 03:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:
> [ the data isn't session lifetime ]
>
> So I agree with Tom's suggestion:
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Perhaps serialize the contents into an array in DSM, then rebuild a hash
>> table from that in the worker. Robert might have a better idea though.
>
> I'd happily volunteer to write or review a patch to do that. Is there
> a rebase of the stuff that got reverted, to build on?
Those seem like reasons not to use Session, but not necessarily
reasons not to have the leader directly build the dshash that the
workers access rather than building a separate hash table in every
worker.
Maybe having every worker build a separate hash table is a good idea
for some reason, but it's not clear to me that you've stated such a
reason.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-12 04:01 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 12:51 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Munro @ 2018-01-12 04:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Munro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [ the data isn't session lifetime ]
>>
>> So I agree with Tom's suggestion:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Perhaps serialize the contents into an array in DSM, then rebuild a hash
>>> table from that in the worker. Robert might have a better idea though.
>>
>> I'd happily volunteer to write or review a patch to do that. Is there
>> a rebase of the stuff that got reverted, to build on?
>
> Those seem like reasons not to use Session, but not necessarily
> reasons not to have the leader directly build the dshash that the
> workers access rather than building a separate hash table in every
> worker.
Are you saying we should do the work now to create a per-transaction
DSM segment + DSA area + thing that every backend attaches to? I
guess that would be much like the per-session one, except that we'd
reset it and end of xact (a DSA facility we don't have yet but which
would amount to zapping all superblocks, freeing all but one segment
or something). Like the per-session one, I suppose it would be
created on demand when you run your first parallel query, and then
survive as long as the leader backend. I assumed that we'd do that
work when we really need it for writable parallel query, but that it'd
be overkill for this.
Note that the shared record thing still has the backend local cache in
front of the shared registry, to avoid acquiring locks, so doesn't
actually avoid creating a per-backend hash table, though its entries
point directly to TupleDesc objects in shm.
> Maybe having every worker build a separate hash table is a good idea
> for some reason, but it's not clear to me that you've stated such a
> reason.
I didn't think creating backend local hash tables would be a problem
because it's a vanishingly rare occurrence for the hash table to be
created at all (ie when you've altered an enum), and if created, to
have more than a couple of entries in it. But here's another idea, at
the small end of the how-much-work spectrum:
1. Put the OIDs into a sorted array in the DSM segment.
2. Arrange for EnumBlacklisted() (assuming we're talking about the
infrastructure from commit 1635e80d that was later reverted) to get
its hands on a pointer to that + size and binary search it, instead of
looking in the hash table (enum_blacklist), when running in a worker.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 04:01 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-12 12:51 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 22:06 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Andres Freund <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2018-01-12 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; +Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Thomas Munro
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Are you saying we should do the work now to create a per-transaction
> DSM segment + DSA area + thing that every backend attaches to?
No, I was just thinking you could stuff it into the per-parallel-query
DSM/DSA. But...
> I didn't think creating backend local hash tables would be a problem
> because it's a vanishingly rare occurrence for the hash table to be
> created at all (ie when you've altered an enum), and if created, to
> have more than a couple of entries in it.
...this is also a fair point.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 04:01 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 12:51 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-12 22:06 ` Andres Freund <[email protected]>
2018-01-13 02:42 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Andres Freund @ 2018-01-12 22:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Haas <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On 2018-01-12 07:51:34 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Thomas Munro
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Are you saying we should do the work now to create a per-transaction
> > DSM segment + DSA area + thing that every backend attaches to?
>
> No, I was just thinking you could stuff it into the per-parallel-query
> DSM/DSA. But...
>
> > I didn't think creating backend local hash tables would be a problem
> > because it's a vanishingly rare occurrence for the hash table to be
> > created at all (ie when you've altered an enum), and if created, to
> > have more than a couple of entries in it.
>
> ...this is also a fair point.
OTOH, it seems quite likely that we'll add more transaction-lifetime
shared data (e.g. combocid), so building per-xact infrastructure
actually seems like a good idea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use?
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 04:01 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 12:51 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 22:06 ` Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Andres Freund <[email protected]>
@ 2018-01-13 02:42 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Robert Haas @ 2018-01-13 02:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>; +Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>; Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>; Tom Lane <[email protected]>; Stephen Frost <[email protected]>; Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>; David E. Wheeler <[email protected]>; Christophe Pettus <[email protected]>; Postgres-Bugs <[email protected]>; pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote:
> OTOH, it seems quite likely that we'll add more transaction-lifetime
> shared data (e.g. combocid), so building per-xact infrastructure
> actually seems like a good idea.
Sure, but there's no urgency about it. Particularly if the first cut
at this is implemented using dshash, moving the dshash to a different
DSA with a different lifespan later should be easy.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
}
/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
- * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
- * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
- * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
- * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
- * to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23 Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2890+ messages in thread
From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.
This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.
Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.
Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
+ if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+ *
+ * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+ * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+ * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+ * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+ * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+ * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+ */
+ PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+ }
+
/*
* If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
* the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
* replica index OID.
*/
if (concurrent)
- {
- /*
- * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
- *
- * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
- * if there's an XID already assigned. It would be possible to run in
- * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
- * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
- */
- PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
- }
/* Check for user-requested abort. */
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
--
2.47.3
--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 2890+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-04-03 15:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2890+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-01-11 23:01 Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] BUG #14825: enum type: unsafe use? Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 03:19 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 04:01 ` Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 12:51 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2018-01-12 22:06 ` Andres Freund <[email protected]>
2018-01-13 02:42 ` Robert Haas <[email protected]>
2026-04-03 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[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