agora inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

cost_index() and path row estimate.
2883+ messages / 3 participants
[nested] [flat]

* cost_index() and path row estimate.
@ 2015-04-30 17:08  Bernd Helmle <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Bernd Helmle @ 2015-04-30 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: pgsql-hackers

While looking into a customer performance problem, i saw this in
costsize.c, cost_index() (9.3.6, but it looks the same in HEAD):

	/* Mark the path with the correct row estimate */
	if (path->path.param_info)
	{
		path->path.rows = path->path.param_info->ppi_rows;
		/* also get the set of clauses that should be enforced by the scan */
		allclauses = list_concat(list_copy(path->path.param_info->ppi_clauses),
								 baserel->baserestrictinfo);
	}
	else
	{
		path->path.rows = baserel->rows;
		/* allclauses should just be the rel's restriction clauses */
		allclauses = baserel->baserestrictinfo;
	}

What i'm wondering is the else branch, where the baserel row estimate is
assigned to the
IndexPath. However, it occurs to me that in conjunction with a partial
index, the overall row estimate will be constrained by the row estimate
from the partial index itself, no? I see that this doesn't have an impact
on the cost estimation of the index scan itself, since cost_index() does
this later:

	/* estimate number of main-table tuples fetched */
	tuples_fetched = clamp_row_est(indexSelectivity * baserel->tuples);

I stumpled across this, since i see heavy misestimates in the EXPLAIN
output, where the estimated row count from the partial index vs. the real
row count heavily differs. In the customers case, there are two tables,
where one of the relation has many tuples in the JOIN condition which are
NULLs, like:

CREATE TABLE a2(id integer);
CREATE TABLE b2(id integer);

INSERT INTO a2 SELECT NULL FROM generate_series(1, 9800) AS t(id);
INSERT INTO a2 SELECT t.id FROM generate_series(1, 200) AS t(id);
INSERT INTO b2 SELECT t.id FROM generate_series(1, 200) AS t(id);

CREATE INDEX ON a2(id) WHERE id IS NOT NULL;
CREATE INDEX ON b2(id);

Here i get the following plan:

EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM b2 INNER JOIN a2 ON a2.id = b2.id ;

 Merge Join  (cost=10.79..12.63 rows=4 width=8) (actual time=0.084..0.291
rows=200 loops=1)
   Merge Cond: (b2.id = a2.id)
   ->  Sort  (cost=10.64..11.14 rows=200 width=4) (actual time=0.069..0.082
rows=200 loops=1)
         Sort Key: b2.id
         Sort Method: quicksort  Memory: 35kB
         ->  Seq Scan on b2  (cost=0.00..3.00 rows=200 width=4) (actual
time=0.010..0.027 rows=200 loops=1)
   ->  Index Only Scan using a2_id_idx on a2  (cost=0.14..15.14 rows=10000
width=4) (actual time=0.012..0.074 rows=200 loops=1)
         Heap Fetches: 200
 Total runtime: 0.350 ms

EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM b2 INNER JOIN a2 ON a2.id = b2.id WHERE a2.id
IS NOT NULL;

 Merge Join  (cost=10.79..12.12 rows=1 width=8) (actual time=0.080..0.281
rows=200 loops=1)
   Merge Cond: (b2.id = a2.id)
   ->  Sort  (cost=10.64..11.14 rows=200 width=4) (actual time=0.063..0.070
rows=200 loops=1)
         Sort Key: b2.id
         Sort Method: quicksort  Memory: 35kB
         ->  Seq Scan on b2  (cost=0.00..3.00 rows=200 width=4) (actual
time=0.010..0.034 rows=200 loops=1)
   ->  Index Only Scan using a2_id_idx on a2  (cost=0.14..15.64 rows=200
width=4) (actual time=0.012..0.052 rows=200 loops=1)
         Index Cond: (id IS NOT NULL)
         Heap Fetches: 200
 Total runtime: 0.335 ms

With the partial index predicate explicitly specified the row estimate is
accurate, without the predicate the row estimate of the index scan on
a2_id_idx assumes 10000.

It's very likely i miss something really important here, could someone shed
some light on this?

-- 
Thanks

	Bernd


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* Re: cost_index() and path row estimate.
@ 2015-05-01 18:30  Tom Lane <[email protected]>
  parent: Bernd Helmle <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Tom Lane @ 2015-05-01 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bernd Helmle <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers

Bernd Helmle <[email protected]> writes:
> While looking into a customer performance problem, i saw this in
> costsize.c, cost_index() (9.3.6, but it looks the same in HEAD):
> ...
> What i'm wondering is the else branch, where the baserel row estimate is
> assigned to the
> IndexPath. However, it occurs to me that in conjunction with a partial
> index, the overall row estimate will be constrained by the row estimate
> from the partial index itself, no?

No.  The non-parameterized paths for a given relation must all have the
same rowcount estimates; otherwise the path comparison logic fails
fundamentally.  Another way to look at it is that every correct path
will yield the same number of rows in reality; so it would be wrong to
give a path that makes use of a partial index a rowcount advantage over
a path that is not using the partial index but nonetheless is enforcing
exactly the same set of scan restriction clauses.

What could potentially make sense is to detect applicability of partial or
unique indexes earlier than we do now, and use that knowledge to adjust
the relation's rows estimate overall, for all paths.  But I'm not sure
how to do that without either (a) making the code a lot messier than it
is now or (b) duplicating a lot of work or (c) both.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* Re: cost_index() and path row estimate.
@ 2015-05-04 09:22  Bernd Helmle <[email protected]>
  parent: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Bernd Helmle @ 2015-05-04 09:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-hackers



--On 1. Mai 2015 11:30:51 -0700 Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:

> No.  The non-parameterized paths for a given relation must all have the
> same rowcount estimates; otherwise the path comparison logic fails
> fundamentally.  Another way to look at it is that every correct path
> will yield the same number of rows in reality; so it would be wrong to
> give a path that makes use of a partial index a rowcount advantage over
> a path that is not using the partial index but nonetheless is enforcing
> exactly the same set of scan restriction clauses.

Thanks for the explanation. 

-- 
Thanks

	Bernd


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v53 5/7] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 27 +++++++++++++++------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index f2759cdbef1..8d9b2b2e370 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -279,6 +279,21 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 	/* Determine the lock mode to use. */
 	lockmode = RepackLockLevel((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0);
 
+	if ((params.options & CLUOPT_CONCURRENT) != 0)
+	{
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose any functionality.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If a single relation is specified, process it and we're done ... unless
 	 * the relation is a partitioned table, in which case we fall through.
@@ -511,19 +526,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could deadlock
-		 * if there's an XID already assigned.  It would be possible to run in
-		 * a transaction block if we had no XID, but this restriction is
-		 * simpler for users to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--qr3jlalmmcpkiodg
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v53-0006-Error-out-any-process-that-would-block-at-REPACK.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v51 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--r2slln3zpmilwu22
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v51-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v52 07/10] Check for transaction block early in ExecRepack
@ 2026-04-03 15:23  Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2883+ messages in thread

From: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla @ 2026-04-03 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)

Currently, executing REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) without a table name inside a
transaction block throws the error "REPACK CONCURRENTLY requires explicit
table name" instead of the expected transaction block error. This occurs
because ExecRepack() validates the parsed options and missing relation
before verifying the transaction state.

This behavior is inconsistent with other utility commands like VACUUM
,REINDEX, etc; which invoke PreventInTransactionBlock() at the very start
of their execution to properly reject execution inside user transactions
before validating targets.

Add PreventInTransactionBlock to the top of ExecRepack() to enforce the
transaction block restriction early. This prevents the user from fixing
a missing table error only to immediately hit a transaction block error,
and also ensures consistency with rest of the commands.

Author: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
---
 src/backend/commands/repack.c | 26 ++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/backend/commands/repack.c b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
index d6e446d582d..d4c1f0e7652 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/repack.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/repack.c
@@ -292,6 +292,18 @@ ExecRepack(ParseState *pstate, RepackStmt *stmt, bool isTopLevel)
 		MyProc->statusFlags |= PROC_IN_CONCURRENT_REPACK;
 		ProcGlobal->statusFlags[MyProc->pgxactoff] = MyProc->statusFlags;
 		LWLockRelease(ProcArrayLock);
+
+		/*
+		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
+		 *
+		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
+		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
+		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
+		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
+		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
+		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
+		 */
+		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
 	}
 
 	/*
@@ -523,21 +535,7 @@ cluster_rel(RepackCommand cmd, Relation OldHeap, Oid indexOid,
 	 * replica index OID.
 	 */
 	if (concurrent)
-	{
-		/*
-		 * Make sure we're not in a transaction block.
-		 *
-		 * The reason is that repack_setup_logical_decoding() could wait
-		 * indefinitely for our XID to complete. (The deadlock detector would
-		 * not recognize it because we'd be waiting for ourselves, i.e. no
-		 * real lock conflict.) It would be possible to run in a transaction
-		 * block if we had no XID, but this restriction is simpler for users
-		 * to understand and we don't lose anything.
-		 */
-		PreventInTransactionBlock(isTopLevel, "REPACK (CONCURRENTLY)");
-
 		check_repack_concurrently_requirements(OldHeap, &ident_idx);
-	}
 
 	/* Check for user-requested abort. */
 	CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
-- 
2.47.3


--gp2pyozrd5pweboh
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="v52-0008-Introduce-an-option-to-make-logical-replication-.patch"



^ permalink  raw  reply  [nested|flat] 2883+ messages in thread